# What are the oldest human-made artifacts to be essentially worthless? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 17, 2012, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086 "2012-03-17T23:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/21 "2012-03-19T05:50:54Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Which take us right back round again. If pre-human constructions aren’t artifects, then they aren’t artifacts, no matter how recently they were made. And if they are artefacts, then they are artifacts, no matter how long ago they were made. That’s kind of my point - by restricting it to “human”, the OP has essentially rendered the answer into “As long as there have been humans”, because of the quantities of tools produced. Might actually be more useful to wonder when we first _started_ producing items of any worth (outside scientific value) - I suspect ivory items would rank high there. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/22 "2012-03-19T05:54:21Z")
Archeologists love digging in trash and even human waste pits. Once in awhile they might find broken pottery or glass. Maybe even a piece of jewelry or a coin that fell into the waste pit. But, if you dig a trash pile. Mostly what you will find is … someone else’s trash. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/23 "2012-03-19T07:17:13Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s kind of my point - by restricting it to “human”, the OP has essentially rendered the answer into “As long as there have been humans”, because of the quantities of tools produced. Might actually be more useful to wonder when we first _started_ producing items of any worth (outside scientific value) - I suspect ivory items would rank high there. It depends what you mean by “worth”. For example, there was a grindstone found in Australia dating back ~30, 000 years that was valued at several thousands of dollars simply because of its historical value. I imagine that museums and universities and even private collectors would also pay similar prices for significant pieces of almost an tool provided that it has some rarity. The oldest known bow is probably worth a fortune, or the earliest known spear thrower. These are things that are rare, and hence retain some value. The older parietal art and rock carvings would similarly be worth a fortune if you could legally carve it up and put it on the market. Modern Aboriginal art goes for a fortune, and Egyptian or Persian friezes are worth a pretty penny, so I imagine that a good specimen of a 30, 000 year old piece would be nearly priceless. These things may not have any materials value the way that ivory does, and they may not even have had any great value to the creators. But they have value in today’s world because of their rarity. I assume that’s what the OP was referring to. What the oldest valuable object is by that standard I have no idea. Google tells me the oldest spear thrower is also in the ~30, 000 year range and I assume people would pay to add it to their collection, so that may be around the age we’re looking at. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/24 "2012-03-19T07:57:32Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It depends what you mean by “worth”. For example, there was a grindstone found in Australia dating back ~30, 000 years that was valued at several thousands of dollars simply because of its historical value. I imagine that museums and universities and even private collectors would also pay similar prices for significant pieces of almost an tool provided that it has some rarity. The oldest known bow is probably worth a fortune, or the earliest known spear thrower. These are things that are rare, and hence retain some value. Agreed. If we’re going by rarity value, we’d have a much wider selection of items to look at. > [@](#): > > The older parietal art and rock carvings would similarly be worth a fortune if you could legally carve it up and put it on the market. Modern Aboriginal art goes for a fortune, and Egyptian or Persian friezes are worth a pretty penny, so I imagine that a good specimen of a 30, 000 year old piece would be nearly priceless. I agree (although neither of those are classed as “artifacts” _sensu strictu_) > [@](#): > > These things may not have any materials value the way that ivory does, and they may not even have had any great value to the creators. But they have value in today’s world because of their rarity. I assume that’s what the OP was referring to. I agree. But it so happens that some of the oldest things of that nature (rarity value) also happen to be valuable for other reasons (materials and aesthetics) and [one of the oldest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels) happens to be made of ivory. > [@](#): > > What the oldest valuable object is by that standard I have no idea. Google tells me the oldest spear thrower is also in the ~30, 000 year range and I assume people would pay to add it to their collection, so that may be around the age we’re looking at. If rarity value were all we were looking at, I’d say[this](http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/images/bbcochre2000_big.jpg)has them all beat, at 75 000 BCE. That piece is such a key element in the current theories of the evolution of behavioural modernity it should be literally priceless. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/25 "2012-03-19T13:00:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Read his post. He differentiates between tools and chips. It’s a fantastic claim, and since he’s been back without a cite, I guess this is just another case of him making shit up. Wrong, I gave you cites that showed his numbers are correct. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/26 "2012-03-19T14:40:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Wrong, I gave you cites that showed his numbers are correct. As the part of your cite that I quoted in this very thread, it says “millions of scraps of worked flint”. Scraps of worked flint definitely are not tools. ---
**Author:** ![Hairy\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecc23a/32.png) [@Hairy\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hairy_Bob)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/27 "2012-03-19T19:12:51Z")
> [@Number](#): > > Facebook? This post is full of win. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086/28 "2012-03-19T19:41:19Z")
Like facebook posts, the problem with flint chips is recognizing that the result is meaningful and significant and actually meant to be something of value. While archaeologists can look at a chunk o rock and say “see here, it was worked - deliberately - to attempt to achieve a shape like such-and-such” most people would simply see a chunk of rock. At least an arrowhead looks like an arrowhead. (I’m always amazed at the biologists who can define a whole human skull from a fragment of jawone and a few other bits.) So I guess part of the criteria would be “and visibily obvious as being artificial”. Pointy sticks made by simply snapping a dry branch might not qualify. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-oldest-human-made-artifacts-to-be-essentially-worthless/616086.md?page=1)