Heard a professor say stone tools are overrated, had to walk away

Was at a talk last Tuesday at the Natural History Museum. Guy stood up and said most early stone tools are just broken rocks, not real findings. Got me thinking about how much we assume about ancient tech. How do you tell a real tool from a natural break? Is there a solid rule or is it just guesswork?

3 comments

3 Comments

holly_reed551mo ago

That whole 'most stone tools are just broken rocks' thing really gets me. I've seen the SAME pattern at work where people dismiss something as junk just because they don't know what they're looking at. There IS a solid rule for telling real tools from natural breaks actually. Real tools show signs of intentional flaking - like a bulb of percussion where the rock was hit, and flakes removed in a specific direction. Natural breaks look more random and don't have that consistent pattern. It's like how people see a pile of scrap wood and call it garbage, but a carpenter knows exactly which pieces can be turned into something useful. The professor probably just hasn't spent enough time handling the real artifacts.

the_ruby1mo ago

Question whether the professor is really wrong though. Maybe he's seen enough collections full of wishful thinking to know the difference is hazier than people want to admit.

marywilson1mo ago

That 'it's like how people see a pile of scrap wood' comparison feels a bit dramatic to me. I mean sure, there's a difference between real tools and broken rocks, but acting like anyone who disagrees just hasn't seen enough artifacts seems like a stretch. Is it really that black and white for everyone working in the field?