aplomado Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Would an ancient (greater than 10,000 years old) human artifact (such as a tool) be considered a fossil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacha Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 If those tools are made from animal remains I think they would qualify......similar to bone pins made from deer long bones. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) This was given to me by Mrs R and it was given to her by a friend who's mother was an respected archaeologist in the 1970s . Sadly the location of this find of a beautiful spearhead has been lost . I think it is amazing and almost looks like a replica until you zoom into the base of the spearhead and with a loupe you can see fossilised glue and fibres. The glue I think was probably made by boiling tree sap or bark and when it has cooled down chewed to make it flexible. Edited January 18, 2022 by Bobby Rico 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleorunner Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 I personally, and on an individual level, would not call it a fossil. Since our ancestors appeared, I have seen this issue from an archaeological point of view. At the level of experts I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Paleorunner said: I personally, and on an individual level, would not call it a fossil. I not saying the spearheaded is a fossil but there is fossil plant material on the blade .i was told it is glue .The glue is of course could be seen as technology . Edited January 18, 2022 by Bobby Rico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleorunner Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Just now, Bobby Rico said: I not saying the spearheaded is a fossil but there is fossil plant material on the blade .i was told it is glue . It is clear that the organic material used is fossil, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplomado Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 If a fossil is remains or traces of ancient life, I would expect a stone point (old enough) should be fossil... is it not a trace of life? Or not???? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediospirifer Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, aplomado said: If a fossil is remains or traces of ancient life, I would expect a stone point (old enough) should be fossil... is it not a trace of life? Or not???? I agree! Tools should be considered human-origin trace fossils. Somewhere in my rock drawers, I have a scraper that has a brachiopod fossil in the stone. I don't know how old it is offhand, but it's certainly a tool made from a fossil! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 9 minutes ago, Paleorunner said: It is clear that the organic material used is fossil, of course. MrsR was told it was fossils glue before she was given it. I don’t doubt it because it looks and feels right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroroth Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 6 minutes ago, Mediospirifer said: I agree! Tools should be considered human-origin trace fossils. Somewhere in my rock drawers, I have a scraper that has a brachiopod fossil in the stone. I don't know how old it is offhand, but it's certainly a tool made from a fossil! If someone (ancient or otherwise) uses a sharp/sharpened rock as a tool, does that rock qualify as a trace fossil? Does it have to be modified by the historic human like maybe if there was rock knapping involved...? I have no idea, I'll be following this thread with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 1 hour ago, Sacha said: If those tools are made from animal remains I think they would qualify......similar to bone pins made from deer long bones. I agree with @Sacha. Stone artifacts are not fossils. The stone may contain fossils, but the fact that humans altered the stone does not make it a fossil. 4 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroroth Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediospirifer Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 1 minute ago, Theroroth said: If someone (ancient or otherwise) uses a sharp/sharpened rock as a tool, does that rock qualify as a trace fossil? Does it have to be modified by the historic human like maybe if there was rock knapping involved...? I have no idea, I'll be following this thread with interest. If the object was altered by the use, and it's possible to tell that it was altered by human or animal activity, then it's a trace fossil. A granite cobble used as a hammerstone for flint knapping is as much a tool as the knapped pieces, so as long as it is recognizable that it was so used, it should be considered as such. 2 minutes ago, JohnJ said: I agree with @Sacha. Stone artifacts are not fossils. The stone may contain fossils, but the fact that human and altered the stone does not make it a fossil. Footprints and burrows are trace fossils. So are gastroliths. I'd put tools in the same category, personally. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, Mediospirifer said: Footprints and burrows are trace fossils. So are gastroliths. I'd put tools in the same category, personally. As I said, if the tools are made of fossil materials, or animal remains that are old enough now to be fossils, then consideration of the materials as fossils would be accurate. Calling an ancient tool a trace fossil because it was altered by humans confuses the concepts of artifacts and fossils in my understanding. 2 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroroth Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 6 minutes ago, JohnJ said: As I said, if the tools are made of fossil materials, or animal remains that are old enough now to be fossils, then consideration of the materials as fossils would be accurate. Calling an ancient tool a trace fossil because it was altered by humans confuses the concepts of artifacts and fossils in my understanding. I suppose that is what an artifact is, a trace fossil (I suppose when it is old enough? Anyone have any idea on how old this might be? There must be a cut-off point or something?) Also what is the view on animal tools - there are various examples of animals today using things as tools, if any of this material was to become preserved and found hundreds of thousands of years in the future, how would they be viewed? Is an "artifact" reserved for humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleorunner Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 56 minutes ago, JohnJ said: I agree with @Sacha. Stone artifacts are not fossils. The stone may contain fossils, but the fact that humans altered the stone does not make it a fossil. 39 minutes ago, JohnJ said: As I said, if the tools are made of fossil materials, or animal remains that are old enough now to be fossils, then consideration of the materials as fossils would be accurate. Calling an ancient tool a trace fossil because it was altered by humans confuses the concepts of artifacts and fossils in my understanding. I think the same, that a stone tool contains fossils, or contains organic material in its construction, I don't see it correct to call the tool itself fossil. It's just my humble opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediospirifer Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 56 minutes ago, JohnJ said: As I said, if the tools are made of fossil materials, or animal remains that are old enough now to be fossils, then consideration of the materials as fossils would be accurate. Calling an ancient tool a trace fossil because it was altered by humans confuses the concepts of artifacts and fossils in my understanding. 9 minutes ago, Paleorunner said: I think the same, that a stone tool contains fossils, or contains organic material in its construction, I don't see it correct to call the tool itself fossil. It's just my humble opinion. It's an interesting distinction. I suspect that referring to an artifact as a trace fossil in the literature would get called out by reviewers as incorrect terminology, although I like to think of artifacts as a specific class of traces, especially if they're old enough to qualify as fossils. Here's a question. I've seen videos of wild monkeys using rocks to crack nuts. If the rock in question was brittle enough to show chip marks from hammering nuts, and was found in ancient sediments (pre-dating any human occupation), would this be considered an artifact or a trace fossil? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) Here is a link to an interesting article 2015 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32804177.amp Edited January 18, 2022 by Bobby Rico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 If a sharpened stick was used as a weapon and then fossilised. It is both petrified wood and a fossilised tool? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacha Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said: If a sharpened stick was used as a weapon and then fossilised. It is both petrified wood and a fossilised tool? If it is clearly apparent that the stick has been modified by human action, then I believe it would be, just as a dugong rib with feeding marks would be a fossil showing modification by a shark feeding on it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 7 minutes ago, Sacha said: If it is clearly apparent that the stick has been modified by human action, then I believe it would be, just as a dugong rib with feeding marks would be a fossil showing modification by a shark feeding on it. Me too. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 The original question concerned ancient human artifacts. Without getting too far off in the semantic weeds, I was taught that a human artifact is some material that a human intentionally modified. This concept separates it, in this context, from random rocks or fossils. All artifacts are not fossils. Some artifacts can be comprised of fossils or fossil material. I'm a big fan of clarity in concepts. I think ancient human footprints fall into the same trace fossil category as any other fossil animal track. But, I'm not going to 'monkey' around with 'simian artifact' terminology. 1 2 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 (edited) “Can an ancient human artifact be a "fossil"?” Yes, of course it can. At its simplest, a trace fossil is evidence of an activity by an organism. Our activity may be more “advanced”than other organism’s activity, but it is still activity. A human artifact over a defined age that qualifies it as a fossil is a trace of our biological activity: feeding trace, hunting trace, creation of art trace. Other organisms create trace fossils from hard substances. A gastropod drills a bivalve. A barnacle creates a hole in a hard substrate to create a home. A beaver shapes a piece of wood to create a piece of its home. (I supposed fossilized wood shaped by a beaver relative could be found.) Is someone going to say that mud balls formed by a 1 mya shrimp by its claws (hands) as a tool to support a burrow are not trace fossils? Edited January 19, 2022 by DPS Ammonite 1 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 I don't subscribe to the idea that all artifacts are fossils. This leads to the concept of "fossil" becoming meaningless. Artifacts like an obsidian spearpoint, or a quartzite grindstone, or the cave paintings in Lascaux being considered as fossils is a confusing conflation of concepts, to me. 5 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroroth Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 I think artifacts could be considered a class of trace fossil. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now