900,000 year old Swiss army knife? (Multi-tool history)

[supratentorial]

900,000 year old "Swiss army knife" (of the Stone Age)

Victorinox advertisement showing the evolution of the Swiss army knife

One of the Victorinox advertisements shows the evolution of the Swiss army knife from from a stone. It's just an ad but it may not be far from the truth. Although Victorinox has been around a long time (125 years), multi-function tools may have been around a lot longer. According to an article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science on ScienceNOW, a 900,000 year old hand axe, sometimes called "the Swiss army knives of the Stone Age world", was found in Europe (in Spain, not Switzerland). According to the article, these Stone Age Swiss army knives, were first invented in Africa 1.5 million years ago! Perhaps that is the very first "Swiss army knife" or multi-tool.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/902/5

 

[Steely_Gunz]

I would love to have the skills that they early man that crafted that had. Think about it, with a couple of rocks and a little time you had a fully functioning knife/axe/skinner. If the edge chipped, knap it out. If the tool broke, pick up another rock and make a new knife.

For hundreds of thousands of years, all we really needed was an edged rock and a pointed stick...kinda makes ya think about that high dollar folder tucked away in your pocket. you know the one, the one you fretted about buying because of edge retention

I'm guilty as charged.

 

[powernoodle]

I question one's ability to accurate determine when that rock was made into a tool, but it is still cool. Reminds me of ice age man and his EDC kit. Link.

 

[supratentorial]

......kinda makes ya think about that high dollar folder tucked away in your pocket. you know the one, the one you fretted about buying because of edge retention

I'm guilty as charged.

According to some theories: "a well-made hand ax was a sign that its maker, presumed to be a guy, had good genes and would be a suitable mate for any gal lucky enough to have him."
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/02/is-a-handax-really-a-handax.html

That's why the guys at Bladeforums get all the babes!

 

[Doug S]

I question one's ability to accurate determine when that rock was made into a tool, but it is still cool.

You're on to something there. Commonsense is a very good thing. I'm an archaeologist by trade (spend my days teaching it now), and I can't honestly tell you that I absolutely know the date of manufacture of the tools I find. Theory is not fact. Dating techniques are not perfect, and unfortunately many such findings are subject to someones agenda.

I do like the picture of the evolving SAK, though!

 

[cotdt]

Some of those knives made from obsidian rock are sharper than anything made of steel, the ancients used them for shaving. But they are probably more brittle than even D2.

 

[supratentorial]

I agree that theories are not fact and it is OK to challenge theories (a good scientist will challenge his own theories every day) but I wouldn't want to dismiss the findings, especially without reading the primary article. The article that I linked is just a news article. The original article was published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/full/nature08214.html I didn't post a link to the article because you need a subscription to Nature to access it (send me an email if you need a copy for educational purposes). Also it's a highly technical read --good bed time reading . For those that aren't familiar with Nature, it is one of the top tier science journals (others are Science and Cell). Articles are peer reviewed and its highly competitive.

One thing that struck me about the Victorinox advertisement is how closely it resembles the stone that they found in Spain (especially the second angle shown in the photo).

For the Victorinox aficionados, there's a section on stone age knives in the book The Knife and its History: Written on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Victorinox.

 

[jackknife]

I would love to have the skills that they early man that crafted that had. Think about it, with a couple of rocks and a little time you had a fully functioning knife/axe/skinner. If the edge chipped, knap it out. If the tool broke, pick up another rock and make a new knife.

For hundreds of thousands of years, all we really needed was an edged rock and a pointed stick...kinda makes ya think about that high dollar folder tucked away in your pocket. you know the one, the one you fretted about buying because of edge retention

I'm guilty as charged.

That's something that has been on my mnd for many years now. In fact, it was Otzi that gave me the idea of my great downsizing I did a few years back. Got rid of a lot of stuff, and never looked back. Went back to using simpler tools, and one, two layer sak's at the most.

Makes you wonder how much do we really not need?

 

[GIRLYmann]

well ok, but i still would like to know what other kind of stuff a stone multitool is capable off besides cutting...

 

[Doug S]

Supratentorial wrote,

I agree that theories are not fact and it is OK to challenge theories (a good scientist will challenge his own theories every day) but I wouldn't want to dismiss the findings, especially without reading the primary article.

Agreed, for the most part although I tend to think that some scientists (not “good” ones) can become entrenched in their own pet theories making it difficult for them to let go of an invalid idea that they may have established and built a career on. This is why (and I’d be considered a bit of a dinosaur by some for this), I prefer induction and multiple working hypothesis to deductive techniques of the scientific method. Hypothesis derived from specific observations, not the reverse are best IMO. That said, I was only making a general statement to Powernoodle’s comment, not the article specifically. Definitely not trying to start a debate.

And although the following statement may seem a bit off topic as to the original post, I think it relates to the discussion indirectly. That is, I also agree that primary documents are our best source of info, especially so in regard to interpreting Constitutional law based on historic precedent. Too bad many of the current crop of judges don't seem to agree with this. And I might add that there are examples from the not too distant past in which politicians, used "science" and anthropology (the very things we are talking about in this thread) to lead nations down what seemed to be credible (at the time), but turned out to be some very dangerous paths.

Last let me say, that I know you are not advocating any of this. Your comments simply got me thinking, and I find the conversation interesting. Didn't mean to overstep any bounds, forgive me if I did.

Steely_Gunz wrote,

I would love to have the skills that they early man that crafted that had.

You’d be surprised at how well you could knap a point with a little diligent practice. I know a number of people who can take a block of glass or a chunk of chert, and knock out a point as nice as any I’ve seen or found in only a matter of minutes. I’ve personally never put the effort into it that is necessary to become proficient with the skill, but if are interested you ought to give it a try. All you need is a piece of deer antler, and nice piece of leather, and the raw material to make into a point. Places like Williamsburg Pottery in Williamsburg, Virginia sell chunks of colored glass on the cheap.

Cotdt wrote,

Some of those knives made from obsidian rock are sharper than anything made of steel...

There have been experiments conducted between flint blades, and the modern surgical steel scalpel, and from what I’ve read the incisions made with the flint blades seem to be cleaner and heal faster.

 

[supratentorial]

Doug, As an archaeologist by trade, you are undoubtedly very familiar with the rigor of the major journals and how theories work. You made good points--My comments were only intended to give additional context.

I've heard rumor about studies of flint blades and wound healing but haven't seen the data. On a related note, a friend from Holland told me that one of his classmates did research on the benefits of larvae to clean and heal wounds when the patient's normal healing processes is compromised. Sometimes there's a lot of merit to the old ways.

I suppose the uses of the Stone Age Swiss army knives were limited only by the imagination of the hominids that made them... or by our imagination when we interpret archeological findings. The second article that I quoted, mentions that one (minority) theory is that the ax itself was not as important as the sharp flakes of stone created from the stone core.

 

[Doug S]

Doug, As an archaeologist by trade, you are undoubtedly very familiar with the rigor of the major journals and how theories work. You made good points--My comments were only intended to give additional context.

I've heard rumor about studies of flint blades and wound healing but haven't seen the data. On a related note, a friend from Holland told me that one of his classmates did research on the benefits of larvae to clean and heal wounds when the patient's normal healing processes is compromised. Sometimes there's a lot of merit to the old ways.

I suppose the uses of the Stone Age Swiss army knives were limited only by the imagination of the hominids that made them... or by our imagination when we interpret archeological findings. The second article that I quoted, mentions that one (minority) theory is that the ax itself was not as important as the sharp flakes of stone created from the stone core.

Actually for many years I was a simple shovel bum (if there are other shovel bums out there please forgive the slight), where site reports for mitigation projects are pretty much the norm. It was fairly recently that I got into teaching (6yrs), where research and publication seem to come much more into play. In truth I have little interest in physical anthropology or paleo-archaeology. I am much more interested in the subfield of archaeology which I see as the archaeology of anatomically modern humans (again some would disagree with this definition). My area of focus is actually CRM, which as you probably know can be described as the legislative basis for much of the archaeology done in the states today.

I do appreciate your comments, their context, and the obvious knowledge you display in your writings. I don't think our comments were at all opposed to each other. I think we are just sharing perspectives, and are in general agreement. I do appreciate the conversation, and I agree that there is "a lot of merit in the old ways".

Doug

 

[Doug S]

I don't want to get this discussion going again, but while surfing this site today I read through some of this thread again, and realized that I hadn't explained myself very well. What I was simply saying is this, science is not infallible.

Philosophers of science generally agree that,

1. There is no single right way to do science, and
2. A scientific approach cannot guarantee right answers

Even if we say that science is empirical and objective, I think we still have to acknowledge that science is embedded in the scientist’s culture and so it is not free of cultural biases. And the honest truth is that the social, cultural, and political context of archaeology influences its theories.

Interestingly, I was reading something totally unrelated to this topic, that I think makes the point nicely of how politics and "theory" can become intertwined. In the first 3 chapters of John Locke’s, “Two Treatises Of Civil Government”, Locke is responding to the writings of Sir Robert Filmore, who asserts that Adam, by his very nature was ordained by God to be a monarch. He goes on to use this “argument” as a way of legitimizing the divine right of kings. Locke of course is in opposition to this, and really does a decent job of showing how Sir Robert’s work lacks substance. What I find so interesting about it though, is that Locke in disputing Sir Robert’s argument (or as Locke states, lack of any real argument), points out so well how weak suppositions are often put forth as something more substantial (like "science"). In Locke's own words,

“…the thing is there so taken for granted without proof that I could scarce believe myself when, upon attentive reading that treatise, I found there so mighty a structure raised upon the bare supposition of this foundations…without offering any proof…”

“…other than by often repeating it, which, among some men, goes for argument…”

“If no such arguments are to be found, I beseech those men who have so much cried up this book to consider whether they do not give the world cause to suspect that it is not the force of reason and argument that makes them…,but some other interest…”, “But I hope they do not expect that rational and indifferent men should be brought over to their opinion,..because there is so little to prove it…”

“I fear I have tired my readers’ patience by dwelling longer on this passage than the weightiness of any argument in it seems to require; but I have unavoidably been engaged in it by our author’s way of writing, who, huddling several suppositions together, and that in doubtful and general terms, makes such a medley and confusion…”

And my favorite,

“For though this assertion, …be true in no sense, yet it stands here as an evident conclusion drawn from the preceding words, though in truth it be but a bare assertion joined to other assertions of the same kind, which, confidently put together in words of undetermined and dubious meaning, look like a sort of arguing, when there is indeed neither proof nor connection…”

In these words, Locke’s does a much better job of making the point I hinted at earlier. I didn't reference the quotes, but they can be easily found in the first 3 chapters of Locke's "Two Treatises" which is still in print.

 

[supratentorial]

I don't want to get this discussion going again, but while surfing this site today I read through some of this thread again, and realized that I hadn't explained myself very well. What I was simply saying is this, science is not infallible.

Philosophers of science generally agree that,

1. There is no single right way to do science, and
2. A scientific approach cannot guarantee right answers

Even if we say that science is empirical and objective, I think we still have to acknowledge that science is embedded in the scientist’s culture and so it is not free of cultural biases. And the honest truth is that the social, cultural, and political context of archaeology influences its theories.

I agree with everything you say up to that point. But I am skeptical about your argument that Locke made himself clearer in Two Treatises Of Civil Government.

 

[supratentorial]

some science humor:

Doug, This part made me chuckle: "huddling several suppositions together, and that in doubtful and general terms, makes such a medley and confusion…”

 

[Doug S]

Hey now!, I know what you mean. Good cartoon.

 

[supratentorial]

One additional point: The news often portrays scientific findings within a social or cultural context. For example, comparing the stone age tool to a Swiss army knife because of its many functions. It's arguable whether that is a good or bad thing. In this post on Bladeforums I was intentionally focusing on the cultural context of the news article (not the scientific finding itself). But I seriously doubt that anyone would call Victorinox to ask if the stone is in fact a Swiss army knife.

That is a separate issue from Doug's point that "embedded in the scientist’s culture and so it is not free of cultural biases. And the honest truth is that the social, cultural, and political context of archaeology influences its theories."


My qualifications in science are elsewhere (see cartoon above ) but here is a small part of the methods section from the Nature paper for those that may be skeptical of the dating process:

Rock Magnetism / Paleomagnetism
The laboratory protocol for both sites was an initial alternating field (AF)
demagnetization to diminish the viscous remanence (up to 15 mT), followed by thermal
demagnetization to randomize the remanence from the weathering mineral goethite (~95°,
135°C) (Table S1). Higher temperatures were then used to isolate the primary remanence,
with as many as 11 progressive heating steps, up to 600°C (Fig. S1).
The heterogeneous fluvial deposits at Solana del Zamborino (La Solana del
Zamborino) have a similarly wide range of magnetic properties (Fig. S2) owing to the
general presence of iron oxides, and in some layers iron sulphides. We restricted our
sampling to siltstones and claystones in a sequence dominated by coarse sandstones
(medium sand to gravel). The remanence recorded by goethite (normal polarity) comprises
about 10% of the magnetization. The other secondary remanences (also normal polarity),
probably recorded by multi-domain magnetite, are a large part of the magnetization. In
general, the strength of the viscous (secondary) component correlates well with the lowfield
magnetic susceptibility and is generally removed by AF demagnetization (Fig. S2).
The remaining remanences (normal or reverse polarity) are the primary characteristic
remanence, which is probably recorded by hematite. These more stable components (with
higher coercivity and unblocking temperature) are clustered stratigraphically into
magnetozones: reverse polarity in a lower sequence [14 m, n=7], and normal polarity in an
upper sequence [12 m, n=6]. The two lowest samples in the normal polarity magnetozone
(from the fossil quarry) are greenish-gray claystones that have unusual magnetic behavior
during thermal demagnetization. Laboratory heating between 240° and 300°C causes
random dispersal of the remanence directions and/or the susceptibility to dramatically
increase. These observations appear to result from thermal alteration of iron sulphides such
as greigite and pyriteS1. We base our polarity determination for these 2 claystone layers
only on their response during the initial demagnetization phases, where the remanence
vectors behave similarly to the other normal polarity specimens. If these layers have reverse
polarity, then the age of Solana del Zamborino would be slightly older (~800 kyr).
The homogeneous, fine-grained deposits at Estrecho del Quípar (Cueva Negra del
Estrecho del Río Quípar) have a two-fold subdivision of their magnetic properties, Firstly,
the characteristic (primary) remanence has: 1) reverse polarity, 2) higher un-blocking
temperatures (>240°C), 3) higher coercivity (>40 mT), and 4) vector intensity that is
independent of low-field susceptibility or secondary vector intensity (Fig. S3). Secondly,
the secondary remanence has: 1) normal polarity, 2) low unblocking temperatures (mostly
<220°C), 3) low coercivity (<20 mT), and 4) vector intensity that directly correlates to lowfield
susceptibility, while being independent of the strength of the characteristic reverse
polarity component. We interpret the stable recorder of reverse polarity remanence to be
hematite, complexed with pedogenically-modified clays. In general, demagnetization
isolates this reverse polarity component (Fig. S1). We interpret the modern normal polarity
remanences to be recorded by multi-domain magnetite and the weathering mineral goethite.
Goethite accounts for a small portion (~10%) of the secondary remanence throughout the
deposit. Multi-domain magnetite accounts for the majority of the secondary remanence,
that average ~5X the intensity of the primary remanence for samples with unambiguous
reverse polarity (&#916;>135°). However, these secondary remanences are ~12X the intensity of
the primary remanence for samples with mixed polarity components (&#916;<135°), which
apparently reflects the combined effects of decreased intensity of the primary component
and the increased intensity of the secondary component (Fig. S3). Reverse polarity was
found at all 15 levels, in 40 out of 45 specimens. The other 5 specimens (from 3 levels)
have mixed component remanences with a weak reverse magnetization relative to a
dominant normal secondary overprint. The broad range of unblocking temperatures for all
minerals reflects the range of grain sizes and domain states in the iron oxides (magnetite,
hematite, and goethite).

 

[Ultraman]

I question one's ability to accurate determine when that rock was made into a tool, but it is still cool. Reminds me of ice age man and his EDC kit. Link.

Just throwing this out, but that is an important concern. There are geochronological tools that can determine the age of formation of a rock, or the age when it last became magnetized and polarized (including direction), or when it reset its "clock" due to heating past its point where it loses its permanent magnetization (Curie point?), but it's different if you want to age date its formation as a man made artifact.

My knowledge is hazy on this, but there would be direct and indirect ways to determine the age by which it was made into a tool. For example, by association with other cultural artifacts or deposition in a layer of rock or sediment that has been age dated. Maybe age dating (pollen, plant material, C14) of material bound into the tool like a handle or a fragment caught in the tool. Don't quote me, but maybe the thickness and composition of the weathering rind on the rock/obsidian can be correlated to relative ages or it can constrain ages.

 

[supratentorial]

The distinction between the age of the stone and the age that it was made into a tool is a good point. (there are lots of good points made in this discussion) The exerpt of the methods section discusses some of the protocol but its more accessible in the news article (at least for my lay person's understanding). Of the possible news sources for scientific findings, the ones from Science and Nature tend to be pretty good (at least in my field) eventhough they are intended to reach a broad audience. But it's necessary to read the actual scientific finding if you need the details, context, and references.

Scott and Gibert redated the sites using a technique called paleomagnetism, which measures the magnetic polarity of minerals in buried sediments to determine their approximate age. Earth's magnetic field has periodically reversed its polarity. The last time this happened was 780,000 years ago, during an event called the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal.

When Scott and Gibert measured the magnetic polarity of sediment layers at Solana de Zamborino, where several hand axes and other tools had been unearthed during the 1970s, they found that the tools lay just above the layers that had undergone the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, providing a new date for the hand axes of about 760,000 years ago. At Estrecho del Quípar, which has been under excavation since the 1990s and where hominin teeth, a hand ax, and other tools have been found, all of the sediment layers were below the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary. From the position of the artifacts in the sediment layers, they are at least 900,000 years old, the researchers report tomorrow in Nature.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/902/5