3 ms·

That’s Oldowan. Levallois was a more advanced technique found starting in the later Paleolithic.

throwup238 3y ago
Oldowan is ~3MYa to 1.5ish MYa. 500 kYa would be Acheulean or even upper Sangoan depending on the region. I don’t think Levallois started until around 300kYa (the error bars are huge, 385k is another interpretation).
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Acheulean followed Oldowan, from ~1.8 MYa to up to 250 kYa in some places. For Levallois, I think I'll trust the anthropologist in the link without some better evidence. Let's recall that technology didn't spread then nearly as quickly as today - no way for people in (current) India to know what people in (current) France were doing, for a long, long time.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwup238 3y ago
    Did you read your link carefully? > About 500,000 years ago, Acheulean technology began to disappear, and our ancestors started making tools using a trickier method. The Levallois technique was an important development, as flakes of an exact size and shape could be made. Acheuleun “began to disappear” is not the same as “evidence of Levallois starting”. The whole paragraph is vague and poorly written. There are several intermediary industries like Sangoan and the aging on the first Levallois tools is controversial and based on sedimentary layers, not more precise methods. This is a junk layman article, not a precise description of the evolution from Acheuleun to Levallois
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I would interpret it otherwise; I think yours is a very literal interpretation. But regardless, do you have something better? I'm all eyes.
      - throwup238 3y ago
        Literally any book from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois_technique#References https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois_technique#Referenc... would be fine, including the first one in the list. Levallois tool at 500kYa isn’t backed by any science whatsoever.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Literally, we could use some evidence, especially about the last sentence. Adverbs and adjectives aren't evidence.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        I'm always fascinated by how humans end up discussing these things. Like in this case, who has the burden of proof? I'm an outsider to this field so all I can glean is that apparently the vast majority of summaries I can find cite 200-300 kYa and one reference citing an "unambiguous" find that places the technique at 400 kYa. So if somebody says that "there doesn't seem to be enough evidence for a claim that the levallois technique is 500 kYa" (I'll soften the more incendiary phrasing of "no scientific basis whatsoever" because after all that's just an emphatic raetoric device and I think filtering them out is conducive to more fruitful discussion), do they have to back it up with references? Or is the person who claims 500 kYa that has to provide arguments as to why that number is not yet part of the scientific consensus? I mean, there could be simple explanations like "yes I know, the result is relatively new so you may still find a lot of references to 200-300 around until stuff gets updated but working scientists in the field are mostly on board with 500 kYa". I mean for me, a casual reader, this kind of argument would be enough for a thread of HN. What if somebody claims that the technique is 10 million years old, and somebody replies "there is scientific data backing that up", would it be reasonable to counter that with "please provide proof for your dismissal"? Obviously not, because the claim would be so outlandish, right? But 1M, 800 kYa?

Oldowan is ~3MYa to 1.5ish MYa. 500 kYa would be Acheulean or even upper Sangoan depending on the region. I don’t think Levallois started until around 300kYa (the error bars are huge, 385k is another interpretation).

wolverine876 3y ago
Acheulean followed Oldowan, from ~1.8 MYa to up to 250 kYa in some places. For Levallois, I think I'll trust the anthropologist in the link without some better evidence. Let's recall that technology didn't spread then nearly as quickly as today - no way for people in (current) India to know what people in (current) France were doing, for a long, long time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwup238 3y ago
  Did you read your link carefully? > About 500,000 years ago, Acheulean technology began to disappear, and our ancestors started making tools using a trickier method. The Levallois technique was an important development, as flakes of an exact size and shape could be made. Acheuleun “began to disappear” is not the same as “evidence of Levallois starting”. The whole paragraph is vague and poorly written. There are several intermediary industries like Sangoan and the aging on the first Levallois tools is controversial and based on sedimentary layers, not more precise methods. This is a junk layman article, not a precise description of the evolution from Acheuleun to Levallois
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I would interpret it otherwise; I think yours is a very literal interpretation. But regardless, do you have something better? I'm all eyes.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      Literally any book from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois_technique#References https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois_technique#Referenc... would be fine, including the first one in the list. Levallois tool at 500kYa isn’t backed by any science whatsoever.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Literally, we could use some evidence, especially about the last sentence. Adverbs and adjectives aren't evidence.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        I'm always fascinated by how humans end up discussing these things. Like in this case, who has the burden of proof? I'm an outsider to this field so all I can glean is that apparently the vast majority of summaries I can find cite 200-300 kYa and one reference citing an "unambiguous" find that places the technique at 400 kYa. So if somebody says that "there doesn't seem to be enough evidence for a claim that the levallois technique is 500 kYa" (I'll soften the more incendiary phrasing of "no scientific basis whatsoever" because after all that's just an emphatic raetoric device and I think filtering them out is conducive to more fruitful discussion), do they have to back it up with references? Or is the person who claims 500 kYa that has to provide arguments as to why that number is not yet part of the scientific consensus? I mean, there could be simple explanations like "yes I know, the result is relatively new so you may still find a lot of references to 200-300 around until stuff gets updated but working scientists in the field are mostly on board with 500 kYa". I mean for me, a casual reader, this kind of argument would be enough for a thread of HN. What if somebody claims that the technique is 10 million years old, and somebody replies "there is scientific data backing that up", would it be reasonable to counter that with "please provide proof for your dismissal"? Obviously not, because the claim would be so outlandish, right? But 1M, 800 kYa?