Evolutionists tend to use adjacent artifacts as help in determining the age of a fossil.
An example would be dating a fossil as older because crude rock tools are with it at the site. But does this technique make sense?
Many tribes throughout the world use tools similar to those found with fossils. If we find these people 100 years from now will we instantly determine that they are from 100,000 years ago based on the tools they used?
If a tool served its purpose, then there would be no need to improve it. A stone tool for breaking open shells would still break open shells today.
One of the most common tools was the hand ax. If a site was found with one of these axes it was instantly dated as a homo-erectus site, even without a fossil found.
The ax always baffled people due to its design. It was the shape of a giant almond, pointed on one end and round on the other. Because the rounded end is thicker, it has an eccentric center of gravity. It has a cutting edge all around its perimeter, and was not used with a handle. It was assume to be used for chopping, but being sharp all around could cause it to chop your hand as you use it.
Eileen M O'Brien conducted an experiment which led her to conclude that the hand ax was actually a flying projectile weapon. (Pretty good for cavemen).
She had a fiberglass replica made of one of the axes. It was a foot long and weighed 4 pounds. She then had discus throwers practice with it.
When thrown, the hand ax spun horizontally as it rose, and when it had reached maximum altitude flipped onto its edge and descended. It landed on its knife sharp edge 93% of the time. The average throw was over 100 feet.
Our ancestors could have killed large animals with this tool. But evolutionists instantly claim that it belonged to an ignorant cave dweller when they find one because it is made of stone.
O'Brian even mentioned the similarity between this ax and the Greeks sport of discus used in ancient Olympics. "Is it possible that the ancient Greeks preserved as a sport a tradition handed down from a distant yesterday."
If that is the case, that "distant yesterday" may not have been so long ago.