3 ms·

There is plenty of evidence, including in written records (writing dates back ~5,200 yrs). We have actual stone tools from millions of years ago; metal tools fr

There is plenty of evidence, including in written records (writing dates back ~5,200 yrs). We have actual stone tools from millions of years ago; metal tools from thousands of years ago should be relatively abundant. Take a look online and you can find much written about it. Encyclopedia Britannica is often a good starting point, or the literature review in a scholarly article (via scholar.google.com).

lumost 3y ago
Apologies if this question is out of ignorance. But with a stone tool made out of something such as granite, isn't it correct that the only requirement is that the tool is not unduly compressed/crushed for it to survive 10s of thousands to millions of years? Metal tools need to avoid oxidation as well which doesn't seem tractable over timelines greater than a few thousand years.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Good questions. I don't happen to know, but don't metals survive in the earth - whence they are mined - for essentially eternity?
  - dbingham 3y ago
    Metal ores are usually oxidized versions of the metal that need to be refined in someway. In other words, the metal in the Earth has already rusted.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > But with a stone tool made out of something such as granite, isn't it correct that the only requirement is that the tool is not unduly compressed/crushed for it to survive 10s of thousands to millions of years? Stone tools were made mostly from flint due to the way it cleaves with sharp edges. Granite and other stone tools weren't used until the neolithic as ground stones. In order to survive for that long, stone tools mostly just had to avoid moving water. Anything that fell into a river or ocean would be worn away quickly (like beach glass). Unfortunately, until the end of the last glacial period (~12,000 years ago), the sea level was much lower than it is today and most human habitation has long since been flooded by the melting glaciers. Underwater archaeology is a new field that's growing in importance but it's slow going and the ocean is much more dynamic that dry land.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  Iron rusts, but bronze is much more corrosion resistant. For example this photo from the wikipedia article for Bronze Age [1] shows a bronze statue from Egypt that is about 3500 years old and is virtually corrosion free. You can find numerous similar other photos like this one, quite a few in the same wiki article. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age#/media/File:Thutmose_III_sphinx_E10897-Louvre_042005_06.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age#/media/File:Thutmos...
  - lumost 3y ago
    Isn't egypt somewhat of an outlier on this topic as there are numerous dry sites? I can't imagine that a bronze tool would survive if made in a wet climate such as East Asia, Northern Europe, or most South American sites.
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      Here's a large number of bronze ax heads from Germany from the Bronze Age, all virtually corrosion free. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze#/media/File:ALB_-_Hortfund_Gro%C3%9F_Gaglow.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze#/media/File:ALB_-_Hortf...
fasterik 3y ago
How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? I would have assumed they stopped publishing it, but it looks like they are still updating the digital version. I find Wikipedia to be a pretty good resource on most subjects, even if occasionally I run into low quality writing or missing citations.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? My POV: Britannica article often are written by experts, sometimes the leaders in their fields (in the past they even had authors such as Albert Einstein). There's an editorial process to ensure accuracy by its formal meaning, the three C's: Correct, Complete, and Consistent. Also, the writing is often exceptional - sharp, expertly informed, with personality, like a top-notch professor. The downside is that the primary authors sometimes appear to have written decades ago (budget issues?) and then the articles were updated by editors. Also, while articles are internally consistent, Britannica is sometimes inconsistent between articles; for example, the article on hominids might say something slightly different about the evidence for primate evolution than the article on great apes; however, that is the case with every large reference work I've seen - you need to read a few articles if you want the comprehensive view, like talking to multiple professors about the same issue. My view on Wikipedia comes from the foundation that, if the accuracy of some information is unknown, the information is worthless (a judgment backed by theory, though most people on the street disagree these days). I don't know the accuracy of Wikipedia information; I don't know which information in an article is correct and which is incorrect; I don't know which is complete and which omits essential details; I don't know when it's consistent or inconsistent. I have experience editing Wikipedia and that supports my POV; also, when I've chased down citations for claims, they often have been completely falsified (the citation says nothing of the sort) or are misleading. In other words, I think Wikipedia is the epitome of online misinformation. Most disagree, I know; my guess is that they don't want to lose their treasured resource and habits.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    It's the difference between trying to be correct in one go, versus having a process in place that leads to eventual correctness. Each has its own upsides and downsides. Wars can be fought between people who prefer the one over the other. ;-)
Ekaros 3y ago
I wonder how recycling affects this? Metals are recyclable. Stone tools less so. So I would expect that more of stone tools were just tossed compared to anything made from iron or bronze.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I've read that some/many anthropologists thought/think that the stone tools were essentially disposable, made for an immediate use and then tossed aside. The reason they say that is the large quantity of tools that have been discovered.

lumost 3y ago

Apologies if this question is out of ignorance. But with a stone tool made out of something such as granite, isn't it correct that the only requirement is that the tool is not unduly compressed/crushed for it to survive 10s of thousands to millions of years? Metal tools need to avoid oxidation as well which doesn't seem tractable over timelines greater than a few thousand years.

wolverine876 3y ago
Good questions. I don't happen to know, but don't metals survive in the earth - whence they are mined - for essentially eternity?
- dbingham 3y ago
  Metal ores are usually oxidized versions of the metal that need to be refined in someway. In other words, the metal in the Earth has already rusted.
throwup238 3y ago
> But with a stone tool made out of something such as granite, isn't it correct that the only requirement is that the tool is not unduly compressed/crushed for it to survive 10s of thousands to millions of years? Stone tools were made mostly from flint due to the way it cleaves with sharp edges. Granite and other stone tools weren't used until the neolithic as ground stones. In order to survive for that long, stone tools mostly just had to avoid moving water. Anything that fell into a river or ocean would be worn away quickly (like beach glass). Unfortunately, until the end of the last glacial period (~12,000 years ago), the sea level was much lower than it is today and most human habitation has long since been flooded by the melting glaciers. Underwater archaeology is a new field that's growing in importance but it's slow going and the ocean is much more dynamic that dry land.
credit_guy 3y ago
Iron rusts, but bronze is much more corrosion resistant. For example this photo from the wikipedia article for Bronze Age [1] shows a bronze statue from Egypt that is about 3500 years old and is virtually corrosion free. You can find numerous similar other photos like this one, quite a few in the same wiki article. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age#/media/File:Thutmose_III_sphinx_E10897-Louvre_042005_06.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age#/media/File:Thutmos...
- lumost 3y ago
  Isn't egypt somewhat of an outlier on this topic as there are numerous dry sites? I can't imagine that a bronze tool would survive if made in a wet climate such as East Asia, Northern Europe, or most South American sites.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    Here's a large number of bronze ax heads from Germany from the Bronze Age, all virtually corrosion free. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze#/media/File:ALB_-_Hortfund_Gro%C3%9F_Gaglow.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze#/media/File:ALB_-_Hortf...

fasterik 3y ago

How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? I would have assumed they stopped publishing it, but it looks like they are still updating the digital version. I find Wikipedia to be a pretty good resource on most subjects, even if occasionally I run into low quality writing or missing citations.

wolverine876 3y ago
> How does Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia? My POV: Britannica article often are written by experts, sometimes the leaders in their fields (in the past they even had authors such as Albert Einstein). There's an editorial process to ensure accuracy by its formal meaning, the three C's: Correct, Complete, and Consistent. Also, the writing is often exceptional - sharp, expertly informed, with personality, like a top-notch professor. The downside is that the primary authors sometimes appear to have written decades ago (budget issues?) and then the articles were updated by editors. Also, while articles are internally consistent, Britannica is sometimes inconsistent between articles; for example, the article on hominids might say something slightly different about the evidence for primate evolution than the article on great apes; however, that is the case with every large reference work I've seen - you need to read a few articles if you want the comprehensive view, like talking to multiple professors about the same issue. My view on Wikipedia comes from the foundation that, if the accuracy of some information is unknown, the information is worthless (a judgment backed by theory, though most people on the street disagree these days). I don't know the accuracy of Wikipedia information; I don't know which information in an article is correct and which is incorrect; I don't know which is complete and which omits essential details; I don't know when it's consistent or inconsistent. I have experience editing Wikipedia and that supports my POV; also, when I've chased down citations for claims, they often have been completely falsified (the citation says nothing of the sort) or are misleading. In other words, I think Wikipedia is the epitome of online misinformation. Most disagree, I know; my guess is that they don't want to lose their treasured resource and habits.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  It's the difference between trying to be correct in one go, versus having a process in place that leads to eventual correctness. Each has its own upsides and downsides. Wars can be fought between people who prefer the one over the other. ;-)

Ekaros 3y ago

I wonder how recycling affects this? Metals are recyclable. Stone tools less so. So I would expect that more of stone tools were just tossed compared to anything made from iron or bronze.

wolverine876 3y ago
I've read that some/many anthropologists thought/think that the stone tools were essentially disposable, made for an immediate use and then tossed aside. The reason they say that is the large quantity of tools that have been discovered.