How do archeologists know that old tools they find were made by Homosapiens and not another species of homonid?
In: 52
Archaeologist here! If another archaeologist wants to correct me please do; I’ve been out of the field for a few years.
What the other two comments said, but also;
Most tools can be categorized based on features and location and cross referenced to a catalogue of previously identified tools. Ie. A Clovis point will look drastically different from a plains point. This is a good visual https://relicrecord.com/blog/projectile-point-identification-guide/
We also use other indicators as tools are typically found with other items in the site. Bones, jewellery, ritual items, ceramics, plant matter, wood.
We can date these as well, especially organic items via carbon dating, dendrochronology (using tree rings to date the wood), and comparative analysis of ceramics. We see different artistic styles throughout the evolution of cultures for art, jewellery, and ceramics and these occur at relatively specific periods. I didn’t study bioarchaeology, but as I understand it there’s also the ability to date via the mitochondria – but this is outside my experience and knowledge, I’ve just heard of it in passing.
Through paleoethnobotany techniques we can analyze plant cells and learn about the contemporary plant life that may have also differed in time periods.
Usewear would be another indicator. Through microscopic analysis we can analyze what’s basically the fingerprint of the tool; the traces indicating what it was used on. Depending on the culture and their known diet, we can also use this to date tools.
Other homonids did make tools, like Homo Habilis who made some of the earliest tools (known as Olduvan Complex tools). The Acheulean complex followed this. These are both fairly simplistic tool styles, using cores (ie. Larger rocks with little working) or primary flakes (hit two stones together, first flake that comes off the core is a primary flake) as hammerstones, scrapers, and simplistic knives. Oftentimes these older pieces are also made from more quartz heavy rocks (in my experience – I’m in western Canada, this could and likely does differ elsewhere), whereas later dated tools are made from stones that can achieve a much finer point and blade, ie. Obsidian and chert (note: what we call chert is different than what geologists would call chert. Don’t ask me how; not a geologist lol). This is very simplified though, as later cultures still used cores, primary flakes, and high quartz content stones, they just also used more processed tools.
The materials used will also indicate cultural complexity. Obsidian is fascinating in North america; its use was incredibly widespread but the sources of it are less so. This is one way we know of a trade network spanning the north to south americas.
Soil stratigraphy (the soil layers) could also be used to help, but it’s less reliable thanks to things like mudslides.
So we would identify tools based on context in the site, geographic location, material, complexity, and other cultural items found within the site.
None of this is set in stone (ha!) though. Since I graduated (2016) we’ve seen a pushback in date of North American habitation via Clovis point dating. We also don’t have a ton of evidence for early homo species, or pre homo species (ie. Australopithecus) compared to homo sapiens/Neanderthals. It’s possible that coexisting species may have traded tools, learned techniques from one another, or that tools may be dated wrong.
If you want to learn more, learning about flint knapping is a very fun hobby. I’ll also edit this with the title of a book I use frequently for info on lithics (stone tools) when I’m home.
Latest Answers