Pages

Guide to Patagonia's Monsters & Mysterious beings

I have written a book on this intriguing subject which has just been published.
In this blog I will post excerpts and other interesting texts on this fascinating subject.

Austin Whittall


Thursday, November 14, 2019

Life on Mars, new findings and the Viking experiments of 1976


I know that this post has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of this blog, but I have to admit that since my twelve-year-old eyes saw the amazing photos of Mars taken by Mariner 9 back in 1971, the possibility of life on Mars has always excited my imagination.


Then came the Viking missions and their experiments designed to find life on Mars (1976). The results were contradictory and surprising:


In the LR (labeled release) experiment, Mars soil was scooped up by the Viking probes, placed in a vat, laced with nutrients -to feed any possible microbes living in the soil. Nutrients that were tagged with a radioactive isotope of carbon (carbon-14 or C-14). The theory was that as the Martian microorganisms fed on the C-14 tagged nutrients, they'd release byproducts such as methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), the radioactive carbon would be bound into these molecules due to the processing by the microbes and sensors would detect the radioactive gases.


Both Viking landers carried the mini lab onboad and both probes 4,000 miles apart (6.400 km) detected signs of biological activity. Of course some non-biological processes could yield the same results such as soil activated by the solar ultraviolet radiation, so samples were taken from spots shaded by rocks from the UV radiation: they too displayed "biological activity".


Another test was run in which the soil was cooked at 160°C (320°F) to kill any microbes. Then the test was run again: no biological gases were detected probably because the heating killed the Martian microbes. Heating up to 50°C (122°F) also stopped bio-activity.


This meant life right? Well no, there was a gas chromatograph — mass spectrometer (GCMS) experiment that could detect organic compounds in the soil. It detected none. In fact it found that Mars had even less of these compounds than the Moon soil recovered by the Apollo missions. This was surprising (organic compounds are very common all across the Solar System) and apparently the GCMS was working correctly. The conclusion: no organic compounds meant no life. Case closed.


A few weeks ago I cama across a blog post in Scientific American (I'm Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s - The Labeled Release experiment on the Viking mission reported positive results, although most have dismissed them as inorganic chemical reactions) it was published on Oct. 10, 2019 and written by Gilbert V. Levin, an engineer who was a principal experimenter of the Viking LR experiment. The article is worth reading. In it, Levin mentions the following: (quote)


  • Methane has been measured in the Martian atmosphere; microbial methanogens could be the source;
  • The rapid disappearance of methane from the Martian atmosphere requires a sink, possibly supplied by methanotrophs that could co-exist with methanogens on the Martian surface;
  • Ghost-like moving lights, resembling will-O’-the-wisps on Earth that are formed by spontaneous ignition of methane, have been video-recorded on the Martian surface;

(unquote)


Yesterday I read a news release that led me to a paper on Methane and Oxygen and their odd behavior on Mars: Seasonal variations in atmospheric composition as measured in Gale Crater, Mars, published 12 Nov. 2019, by Melissa G. Trainer Michael H. Wong et al., https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JE006175


The paper looks into the data recorded by the Curiosity Mars rover on how the concentration of certain gases changes over the course of Martian seasons. They found that:


"The mixing ratio of O2 shows significant seasonal and interannual variability, suggesting an unknown atmospheric or surface process at work... Oxygen has been observed to show significant seasonal and year‐to‐year variability, suggesting an unknown atmospheric or surface process at work. "


"...Surprisingly, however, we have found that O2 does not demonstrate the predictable seasonal behavior of the other major components... these are the first precise in situ measurements of O2, revealing a surprising seasonal and interannual variation that cannot be accounted for in current chemical models. Though Mars has the potential to generate significant O2 release due to abundances of oxidants in/at its surface, the mechanisms by which O2 could be quickly generated and then quickly destroyed are completely unknown."

Biological and natural processes can explain oxygen in the Martian atmosphere.



Both charts from NASA


But not only oxygen displays an odd seasonal variability, so does methane!:


"... it can be seen that both trace gases [oxygen and methane] exhibit seasonal variations with much greater amplitudes than Ar and N2 ... The observed behavior of either molecule is not currently understood,and a strong relationship between the two might inform the root cause of observed changes in both O2 and CH4, such as the potential seepage or release mechanisms hypothesized for CH4 [Moores et al., 2019]..."


Since both gases can be produced by life forms -on Earth- the same could be happening on Mars. But the rising and lowering of these gases could also be due to natural non-biological phenomena -yet unknown.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Toca do Serrote das Moendas - Brazil. A site that is over 21 Ky old.


This brief post will mention a paper written in 2014, that mentions a site in Brazil which was occupied by humans more than 21 +/-3 Kya.


AngelaKinoshita et al., (2014), Dating human occupation at Toca do Serrote das Moendas, São Raimundo Nonato, Piauí-Brasil by electron spin resonance and optically stimulated luminescence, Journal of Human Evolution Volume 77, December 2014, Pages 187-195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.09.006, reports the following:


"Abstract
Excavation of Toca do Serrote das Moendas, in Piauí state, Brazil revealed a great quantity of fossil wild fauna associated with human remains. In particular, fossils of a cervid (Blastocerus dichotomus) were found, an animal frequently pictured in ancient rock wall paintings. In a well-defined stratum, two loose teeth of this species were found in close proximity to human bones. The teeth were independently dated by electron spin resonance (ESR) in two laboratories. The ages obtained for the teeth were 29 ± 3 ka (thousands of years) and 24 ± 1 ka. The concretion layer capping this stratum was dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) of the quartz grains to 21 ± 3 ka. As these values were derived independently in three different laboratories, using different methods and equipment, these results are compelling evidence of early habitation in this area.
"


The authors argue that the deer remains and the human remains are the same age, which is the weak point in their case. Sedimentation could have altered the laying down of the fossils, and younger human bones could have ended up next to ancient deer teeth. Yet there is the chance that they were coeval events.


This is the location of the site:




Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Saturday, November 9, 2019

Hualongdong skull from China supports pre-OOA Homo sapiens evolution in Asia


A paper published last April (Archaic human remains from Hualongdong, China, and Middle Pleistocene human continuity and variation by Xiu-Jie Wu et al., PNAS May 14, 2019 116 (20) 9820-9824; first published April 29, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902396116) challenges the commonly accepted viewpoint on human evolution: a skull that is 300,000 years old shows a mixture of ancient Asian and anatomically modern human (AMH) features.


The skull - Hualongdong 6 or HLD 6 for short- is one of a growing group of Asian, and specially Chinese crania displaying a mosaic of archaic and AMH features.


A virtual reconstruction HLD6 with the actual parts (yellow) and the mirror-images of the missing pieces (gray). The image also shows some stone tools found at the site

Why is HLD 6 important? Because it questions the Out of Africa model (AMH originated in Africa and spread across the world 60 Kya). It is clear evidence that shows the legacy of Homo erectus in Asia: they were successful, and evolved into Asian populations of Homo sapiens long beore African Homo sapiens left their homeland.


The abstract of this paywalled paper says:


"Newly found ∼300,000-y-old human remains from Hualongdong (HLD), China, including a largely complete skull (HLD 6), share East Asian Middle Pleistocene (MPl) human traits of a low vault with a frontal keel (but no parietal sagittal keel or angular torus), a low and wide nasal aperture, a pronounced supraorbital torus (especially medially), a nonlevel nasal floor, and small or absent third molars. It lacks a malar incisure but has a large superior medial pterygoid tubercle. HLD 6 also exhibits a relatively flat superior face, a more vertical mandibular symphysis, a pronounced mental trigone, and simple occlusal morphology, foreshadowing modern human morphology. The HLD human fossils thus variably resemble other later MPl East Asian remains, but add to the overall variation in the sample. Their configurations, with those of other Middle and early Late Pleistocene East Asian remains, support archaic human regional continuity and provide a background to the subsequent archaic-to-modern human transition in the region."


So despite my reservations on Chinese science and the state promoted Sino-centric view (akin to the deplorable Aryanism promoted by India's Hindu nationalist BJP party), I must acknowledge science and proof. HLD 6 is proof of human multiregional evolution.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Relatively quick origin for Homo floresiensis pigmies: 150 to 675 generations to shrink in size


The Flores Island Homini shrunk in height over a relatively short period of time according to an article published on October 9, 2019:


The paper written by José Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho, Lucas Jardim, Thiago F. Rangel, Phillip B. Holden, Neil R. Edwards, Joaquín Hortal, Ana M. C. Santos and Pasquale Raia (Quantitative genetics of body size evolution on islands: an individual-based simulation approach - 15Biol. Lett. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0481), simulated models to explain how hominins could have reduced their size over time:


"We applied the model to evaluate body size differentiation in the pigmy extinct hominin Homo floresiensis, showing that dwarfing may have occurred in only about 360 generations (95% CI ranging from 150 to 675 generations). This result agrees with reports suggesting rapid dwarfing of large mammals on islands, as well as with the recent discovery that small-sized hominins lived in Flores as early as 700 kyr ago. Our simulations illustrate the power of analysing ecological and evolutionary patterns from an explicit quantitative genetics perspective."



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

The tools found at Hueyatlaco - Valsequillo Mexico


Some additional information on the Valsequillo site in Mexico. Below are some photgraphs of the tools found there:
The tool found at Vasequillos. See full article and source

The only other images of the tools (source) discovered at the site:



Clearly they are three different tools and they seem to be mesolithic to my (layman) eyes. Of course, no size or scale is given so we can only guess what they were really like.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Hueyatlaco the controversial Mexican site at lake Valsequillos


The Hueyatlaco site in Mexico (map with location) has been controversial since it was first studied because the excavations conducted there back in the early 1960s (1962, 1964 and 1966) by C. Irwin-Williams and on occasions also Juan Armenta Camacho, found stone artifacts -later lost by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) located in Mexico City- that were set in extremely old soil layers.


These tools were dated to an age of several hundreds of thousands of years. Far too old to have been made by Homo sapiens.


A good detailed account of this site can be found here: Malde, Harold E., Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, Naeser, Charles W. and VanLandingham, Sam L. 2011. The stratigraphic debate at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo, Mexico. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 14, Issue 3; 44A:26p; palaeo-electronica.org/2011_3/27_malde/index.html.


These early dates were unnaceptable because they contradicted orthodox findings. So they were rejected on the basis that Uranium had leached into the artifacts and altered their age as measured by the uranium series age technique.


An alternate measuring method was used (fission track dating), and the outcome was the same (Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico, Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Roald Fryxell and Harold E. Malde, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(81)90124-1. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017, Quaternary Research, Volume 16, Issue 1July 1981 , pp. 1-17). Below is the Abstract of this paper:


"Abstract
Direct tracing of beds during excavation in May 1973, confirmed that the artifact-bearing layers at Hueyatlaco underlie 10 m of fine-grained, water-laid deposits that constitute part of the wide-spread Valsequillo gravels. Dissection of these deposits by the adjacent Río Atoyac has reached a depth of 50 m. The stratigraphic section at Hueyatlaco includes four distinctive tephra units. The oldest one occupies a small channel in a series of cut-and-fill stream deposits that have yielded bifacial tools. It lies more than a meter above flat-lying, fine-grained beds from which edge-retouched tools have been recovered. The three other tephra units occur higher in the section.
Fission-track ages on zircon phenocrysts from two of the younger tephra layers (370,000 ± 200,000 and 600,000 ± 340,000 yr, 2σ) agree with concordant uranium-series dates for a camel pelvis that was found associated with bifacial tools at Hueyatlaco (245,000 ± 40,000 yr by 230Th and > 180,000 yr by 231Pa). These dates are compatible with the depth of burial and subsequent dissection of the Hueyatlaco deposits, as well as with the degree of hydration of volcanic glass shards and with the extent of etching of heavy-mineral phenocrysts from within the tephra layers.
These findings suggest to us that further search for archaeological remains in deposits as old as those at Hueyatlaco would be warranted.
"


Silvia Gonzalez from the Liverpool John Moores University disputes these early dates, but has agreed to dates which are also older than those currently accepted by orthodox science: 40,000 years.


In The Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Mexico Silvia Gonzalez and David Huddart (FUMDHAMentos VII pp 237-259) discuss the older ages proposed by Steen-McIntyre et al, but also mentions several sites in Mexico with ages of up to 40 kya. One of them is the Toluquilla footprint layer, which has both animal and human foot and paw prints in volcanic ash deposited at Lake Valsequilo. This ash erupted from the Tolquilla volcano roughly 40 Kya:


Gonzalez and Huddart write:


"The stratigraphic context and geochronological control for the Xalnene Ash is shown in Figs.11 and 12 and discussed in detail in Gonzalez et al. (2006a). The Toluquilla Footprint Layer has been dated to 38 ±8.57 Ka (sample number: TW04-10) using Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating of baked, silty xenoliths within the ash which were interpreted as being baked at the time of the eruption, which reset the time signal. The ash layer is older than the stratigraphically younger, fluvial sediments from the Valsequillo Gravels exposed in the Barranca Caulapan (Fig.12) where there are radiocarbon dates between 9.15 ±0.5 Ka (W1896) from the top of the sequence to 38.9 ±0.8 Ka (Oxa-14355) on a mollusc shell at its base, as well as an Electron Spin Resonance date on a mammoth molar and U-Series dates on bones. All of the dates obtained with different methods are in agreement."



See my post on these footprints

Footprints at Valsequillo from Gonzalez and Huddart.

The only work to be published at a date more or less close to the time of the discoveries was written by Juan Armenta Camacho Vestigios de labor humana en huesos de animales extintos de Valsequillo, with his paper presented at the XXXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Puebla, 1978. On its page 111, it mentions the controversial -and other not so controversial dates- for the animal bones with evidence of human activities on them (cuts, crushing, torsion breakage, perforations and even inscriptions).



Dates from Armenta's book (notice the 280,000 year old date)

The question seems to remain open: we have the very ancient dates, but we also have a firm refusal to accept them. Mainstream science simply ignores these findings which otherwise would undermine the neat construction built on the assumption that America was first peopled not more than 15-20,000 years ago.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, November 8, 2019

Click Language may not be the "first" language of mankind


In previous posts I have written about languages, their diversity, out-of-Africa and the peopling of America.


I recently read an interesting article published several years ago in Scientific American (Social Clicks: Sounds Associated with African Languages Are Common in English) by Anne Pycha -February 1, 2012.


Pycha writes that:


"[English language] Speakers, it turns out, use clicks for a previously overlooked purpose: as a form of verbal punctuation in between thoughts or phrases. Melissa Wright of Birmingham City University in England recently analyzed click sounds in six large sets of recorded English conversations. She found that speakers used clicks frequently to signal that they were ending one stretch of conversation and shifting to a new one. For example, a speaker might say, “Yeah, that was a great game,” produce a click, then say, “The reason I’m calling is to invite you to dinner tomorrow.”
This pattern, which occurred for both British and American speakers, suggests that clicks have a meaning similar to saying “anyway” or “so.” That is, clicks provide us with a phonetic resource to organize conversations and communicate our intentions to listeners...
".


Why is this important? Because Click languages, which are only spoken in Africa, are often portrayed as ancient languages, the "original" mother tongue of human beings.


This video shows what a Xhosa sounds like speaking in his click language.


See these scholarly articles as an example of the above notion of a primeval African click language:



However if clicks were overlooked in English, were they also ignored among other languages?


There was one other language outside of Africa, spoken on Mornington Island, Australia. It was called "Damin", nobody speaks it now, it became a lost language. It was spoken in until the 1800s by the initiated men of the Lardil aboriginal tribe (read more here).


The idea that click languages are the original tongue of mankind is based on a weak assumption: since these languages are used by the South African hunter-gatherers, and these people are also (see my recent post on this subject) said to be the oldest group of humans based on their mtDNA, then it must be the primeval language. But are we expected to believe that these people kept their original language while elsewhere it evolved at a rapid pace, diversifying? Why would the click-languages remain static or evolve slower?


I side with Tom Güldemann who wrote: "The idea that modern click phonemes have their ultimate origin in the linguistic feature of a very ancient human language remains just one among several speculative hypotheses."



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Freshwater stingray sighted in Lake Nahuel Huapi - or was it a catfish?


I have posted on the "cuero" myth of the Mapuche natives, which is a creature that resembles a stingray (see my posts here). I mentioned some reports of freshwater stingrays in the region (Northern Patagonia) as an explanation for the myth.


However there are no scientific records of freshwater stingrays in Patagonia.


Today I came across a newspaper report published in January 2014 in Bariloche 2000, which mentions a sighting of a ray in lake Nahuel Huapi


"The neighbor René Zuker said he saw a ray in the waters of Lake Nahuel Huapi, in Villa La Angostura. The fisherman shared a photograph with B2000... [see photo below]... 'I think that it it a freshwater stingray and not a manta ray' René stated after verifying the information on the Internet... he reported that he was on the pier at Bahia Mansa and spotted the animal at a depth of 6 meters approximately. 'At first sight I didn't notice it, then I saw that it moved and I took the photograph quickly' he said, and he explained that as he is a photography fan, he carries his camera with him wherever he goes.
[he] told us that it is not the first time that he sees an animal of this kind: 40 years ago, on the shore of the lake, meters from the Limay River
[the outlet of Lake Nahuel Huapi] he saw a ray which he described as follows: 'it was the size of my hand, almost just born, and it was being eaten by some bugs, and it drew my attention, it was half rotten".


Ray in Lake Nahuel Huapi. By Rene Zuker

There are no rays, but the lake, and Northern Patagonia is the home to one of the oldest catfish familiess, the Diplomystidae. Not many people know that these fish live in the lakes and rivers of Patagonia. Most are aware of trout, salmon and perch, but not these catfish, pictured below:



They live in Chile and Argentina in the same region where the "Cuero" myth appeared (is that a coincidence?) - see maps below



The map above shows Patagonia in green, the oval is the area where the Cuero myth was popular among the Mapuche natives. In Yellow is the area where you can find freshwater stingrays.


Below is the current distribution of velvet catfish:



Of course a ray and a catfish are different, yet, a fish 6 meters (18 feet) underwater will appear larger than it is due to the refraction of light at the water-air interface (roughly 1.33 times larger than it really is):



The fossil record tells us that catfish have been living in Patagonia since the Eocene, tens of millions of years ago. The Diplomystidae or "velvet catfish" are quite special: they are the basal clade of all catfish, they are the only catfish to have a maxilla (bony jaw) with teeth on it. Furthermore, they are only found in Chile and Argentina.


The only problem with trying to identify the Nahuel Huapi catfish (Diplomystes viedmensis - also known as Olivaichthys viedmensis) with a gigantic freswater stingray is the size. The catfish are barely 30 cm long (one foot). However catfish (sliuridae) can grow into giants: the Siluris glanis can measure 5 meters long (15 feet), and one catfish caught in the Mekong river (source and photo) weighed 646 lbs and measured 8.9 ft long (293 kg - 2.7 m).


Maybe there are some very big catfish in Lake Nahuel Huapi... or who knows, perhaps some yet to be discovered freshwater stingray.


For now all we have is a blurred photo of a dark fish in the lake's clear blue waters.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Hookworms and the peopling of America - revisited


A paper on hookworms mtDNA published earlier this year (Monteiro K J L, Mitochondrial DNA reveals species composition and phylogenetic relationships of hookworms in northeastern Brazil, Infect Genet Evol. 2019 Mar;68:105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.018. Epub 2018 Nov 30) provides more information on the subject of hookworms and the peopling of America (which has been the subject of two previous posts in our blog).


The paper found "... two strongly-supported clades, including Group A, corresponding to Necator americanus, and Groups B and C, corresponding to Necator sp. Group A was divided into three main clusters: A1 grouped with Asian sequences, A2 grouped with African sequences, and A3 had only Asian sequences. Group B was closely related to Necator sp., showing a sequence similarity of 98%–99% with African samples circulating zoonotically among humans and non-human primates".


The following image shows both clades:



N. americanus mtDNA tree. From Monteiro et Al.

The interesting part is the relationship between the Groups:


  • A1 Group (shown in pink above) is, according to the authors "Grouped with Asian sequences", the samples from Asia are marked with green rhombus.
  • A2 Group (shown in pale blue) "Grouped with African sequences", displays a recent Togo sample (brown square) among an older set of sequences.
  • A3 Group (shown in pale green) has indeed "only Asian sequences".

The authors calculated that the split between the two clades (one encompassing groups A1, A2 and A3, the other with groups B and C) took place in the middle Pleistocene (that means that it happened between 781,000 and 126,000 years ago).


They also found that "The most recent common ancestor among N. americanus groups was dated to the late Pleistocene." which places it between 126,000 and 12,000 years ago.


Unfortunately I cannot read the full paper, but it seems that the sample from Togo (Africa) is far younger than the other American ones. The point that has to be explained is how did these subtropical and tropical parasites reach America from Asia and avoided the freezing cold Beringian route?



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Sunday, November 3, 2019

A human homeland in Botswana 200 kya? (unlikely)


A paper published last Monday in Nature (Human origins in a southern African palaeo-wetland and first migrations - Chan, E.K.F., Timmermann, A., Baldi, B.F. et al. Nature (2019) doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1714-1) reports that modern humans originated in what is now Botswana, in southern Africa "within the residual Makgadikgadi–Okavango palaeo-wetland of southern Africa, approximately 200 ka (95% confidence interval, 240–165 ka)".


These people carried the "oldest" mtDNA lineage, the L0 one. After 70,000 years of isolation in this former wetland, they finally moved out dispersing to the northeast and southwest between 110 and 130,000 years ago, eventually peopling the whole world.


This paper has received strong criticism for several reasons, such as:


  • It did not use Y chromosome data, which tell a different story.
  • Modern Human Fossils older than 200,000 years have been found in different parts of Africa, including NW Africa (i.e. Morocco 300 kya)
  • It assumes that people don't move: current carriers of L0 living in the area are assumed to have remained there over the last 200 kya! Maybe they moved there from somewhere else.
  • There has been no ancient DNA extracted from human fossils in Africa older than 15,000 years. So we cannot make assumptions on things that took place 200 kya based on contemporary populations.

This is a good criticism to the paper: No, a genetic study didn’t pinpoint the ancestral homeland of all humans

I strongly agree with the critics, and find the paper by Chan et al. unconvincing. Below is a map from the paper.


Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Saturday, October 26, 2019

Levallois tools in Capps, Alabama, USA


I have written several posts on Levallois tools, and today want to share a very interesting text I came across:


Capps A Levallois-Like Flaked Stone Technology in North America
Chapter 3 in Early Human Life on the Southeastern Coastal Plain by Blaine Ensor, ed. by Albert Goodyear and Christopher Moore, 2018


It describes the Capps site in Henry County, southeastern Alabama, USA where many tools manufactured using Levallois techniques have been found. This technique is old (300 Kya) and was used -and developed- by Neanderthals, it replaced the more primitive Acheulean lithic industry used by Homo erectus. And it was very successful, because it survived until some 40 kya.


The author mentions other sites in the US:



Map showing other sites, from Ensor's book.


They are indeed old, the author states that "The uniform heavy patination and staining of the Capps-Shelley artifacts certainly suggest some antiquity, but they cannot be used to date theartifacts... [making it unlikely] that Capps technology is related to Clovis or later Holocene cultures."


It should be pointed out that Levallois tools from the Old World originated some 350,000 years ago, and were used by Neanderthals.


So who made these Capps, Alabama tools? (modern humans or Neanderthals?) When were they made? (within the last 15,000 years? or long before that date?


Further reading: The Capps and Shelley Sites: Capps technology and implications for New World Prehistory by H. Blaine Ensor



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

On Puma parasites and human presence in South America


A paper by Romina S. Petrigh et al, Ancient parasitic DNA reveals Toxascaris leonina presence in Final Pleistocene of South America, (Parasitology, 2019. DOI: 10.1017/S0031182019000787) reported the discovery of a parasitic roundworm in a coprolite (fossilized feces) from a puma (Felis concolor) in Northern Argentina's Puna region. The fossil stool was dated at 16,573–17,002 calibrated years BP.


The finding is indeed remarkable because "Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis confirmed the zoological origin of the coprolite as Puma concolor and that of parasite eggs as Toxascaris leonina. This is the oldest molecular parasite record worldwide".


Mental constraints


The age is a key factor here because, based on it, the authors dismiss that the parasite that infected the puma was transmitted by domesticated dogs (or cats) as other authors postulate; the paper states this several times:


"This allowed confirming the presence of T. leonina in prehistoric times, presumably even before that of humans in the region...Therefore, the common interpretation that the presence of T. leonina in modern American wild carnivores is a consequence of their contact with domestic dogs or cats (Okulewicz et al., 2012) should no longer be assumed as the only possible explanation".


The date is supposedly older than the currently accepted arrival date of humans in the region hence no domestic dogs could have transmitted the parasite to pumas ("The first human explorers who ventured into the area ca. 11 000 years ago")


So, the authors cannot avoid the current time frame for human presence in America. But, what if there were humans here 100,000 years ago, would that have affected the puma parasites? They wouldn't of had dogs with them -domestication date of dogs is much earlier anyway. The point is that human presence is irrelevant to their finding.


I mention this because scientists cannot escape from their mental straitjackets and thes authors mention the 11 Ky date as important-it isn't. But, let's go back to the paper:


A natural origin is suggested, and I fully agree with it: "Canids and felids are infected by ingesting rodents and paratenic hosts and also directly by contact with feces with eggs containing infective larvae. "


Regarding its identity as a Toxascaris leonina the paper indicates that "The BLASTN analysis showed an identity range of 96–93% between cox1 fragment of T. leonina European and Asia isolates from different hosts (canids including dog, wolf and European fox, and felids including Eurasian lynx and South China tiger). Pairwise analysis among available T. leonina sequences showed a wide range of identity percentages, from 98 to 93%. A maximum of 1% intra-specific divergence within Iranian isolates has been reported (Mikaeili et al., 2015). Thus, this 4% divergence with ancient T. leonina could be attributed to different temporal and geographic origins."


So American T. leonina are distinct from Asian ones due to "different temporal and geographic origins", which makes sense, after all the puma belongs to a lineage that originated 6.7 Mya. Nowadays it consists of three species: puma, and on a contiguous branch the American jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi)). The third species is the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) which 100,000 years ago migrated across Beringia into Eurasia and finally into Africa (this is a real "Out of America and Into Africa" event).


Puma surely got the roundworm from some non-human agent (I mean that domesticated dogs had no role in it), yet the authors had to point it out: "At a regional level, these aDNA studies have also allowed confirming the presence of pumas in the southern Puna at the end of the Pleistocene. This has significant implications for the natural history of the region, as well as for inferring the ecological context immediately previous – as far as is known so far – to the first human explorers who ventured into the area ca. 11 000 years ago".


But, as I said further up, humans could have been here in America for one million years and this would have no impact whatsoever on the fact that this team of scientists found ancient roundworm in fossil puma poo.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2014 by Austin Whittall © 

Sunday, October 20, 2019

Calico Site is closed


The Calico "Early Man Site" in Yermo, California, has been closed (BLM closes Early Man Site, John Beyer For the Daily Press Posted Apr 27, 2019).


It is located on land adminstrated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which shut it down due to health concerns and vandalism. It may reopen if funds are secured to ensure the place is safe.


Calico is a controversial site (see our post) and funding will be hard to find.



You can learn all about the site at its website.


I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Calico artifacts. I am not persuaded that they are man-made.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Skin color and Neandertals


Qiliang Ding et al., (2014) published a paper (Neanderthal origin of the haplotypes carrying the functional variant Val92Met in the MC1R in modern humans, Molecular biology, DOI:10.1093/molbev/msu180) which looks into the pale skin of Eurasians in general as due to admixture between Homo sapiens and Neandertals.


The color of our skins is due to the combination of two pigments, one red (phaeomelanin) and one black (eumelanin), and the proportion of this color blend is in part defined by the Melanocyte-stymulating hormone or MSH. MSH is encoded by a gene called MC1R.


If the function of this gene is altered by mutations, it impacts on MSH and therefore on skin color.


Five "loss-of-function" variants of MC1R have been discovered to date, and are linked to fair hair (red or blond) and fair skin:


  1. Val60Leu (rs1805005*T)
  2. Val92Met (rs2228479*A)
  3. Arg151Cys (rs1805007*T)
  4. Arg160Trp (rs1805008*T)
  5. Asp294His (rs1805009*C)

Neanderthals also carried (but we, modern humans don't), another variant of MC1R (Arg307Gly)


Qiliang's team found that "...almost all of the derived alleles at the Val92Met variant of MC1R (rs2228479*A) in the human gene pool are carried by the putative introgressive haplotypes", by "putative introgressive haplotypes" they mean "haplotypes from Neanderthal introgression in modern Eurasians".


It is found at roughly 5% introgression rates in Europeans (not very high), up to 30% in East Asians (Chinese for instance) and at a surprising high introgression rate of 60 to 70% in the Taiwanese aborigine people (the Atayal and the Ami).


They don't know why this cline exists and conjecture: " Therefore, we cannot rule out demographic effects such as population bottleneck as an explanation for the unusually high frequency of rs2228479*A in Atayal and Ami although positive natural selection is also a possibility"


Its origin is linked to the Altai Neanderthal branch and the time line is the following:


"Based on the values, it could be estimated that the putative introgressive haplotypes diverged with the AMH 552.5 ka, then diverged with the Denisovan 159.0 ka, and then diverged with the Altai Neanderthal 103.3 ka (fig. 2). It could be observed that the divergence time between the putative introgressive haplotypes and the Altai Neanderthal (103.3 ka) postdates the reported Neanderthal–AMH divergence time (>270 ka), which indicates the presence of postdivergence introgression"


Altai, Japanese and Africans


The paper reports that "Remarkably, it was observed that all putative introgressive haplotypes carry the derived allele of the Val92Met variant (rs2228479*A), and almost none [except a Japanese subject NA19084_a]... of the nonintrogressive haplotypes carries the rs2228479*A. This suggests that the rs2228479*A carried by the putative introgressive haplotypes might be from archaic hominin lineage. However, rs2228479*A was not found in the Altai Neanderthal genome."


They explain the lack of rs2228479*A in the Altai Neanderthal as follows: " 1) The rs2228479 is polymorphic in Neanderthal populations, and 2) the mutation creating rs2228479*A occurred on the putative introgressive haplotype shortly after it entered modern human gene pool (...) The rs2228479*A was found in one (out of 41) sequencing read of Altai Neanderthal and one (out of 20) sequencing read of Denisovan. All of the relevant sequencing reads and base calls passed quality control filter. Therefore, it could be possible that the Neanderthal and Denisovan are heterozygous at the rs2228479, and some unknown reason caused the imbalanced observation of ancestral and derived alleles of rs2228479 in sequencing reads."


The Japanese subject NA19084-a is among the non-introgresses subjects, so the derived allele at rs2228479 "might be from recurrent mutation, double recombination, or biased gene conversion".



Interestingly they found this allele at rs2228479 in three African subjects: "...among all HapMap African individuals, it was observed that one YRI (Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria; NA18852) and two MKK (Massai in Kinyawa, Kenya; NA21339 and NA21574) carry heterozygous alleles at the rs2228479".


They propose three possible explanations for this odd situation:


"Presence of derived alleles at Val92Met (i.e., rs2228479*A) in Africans could be explained by three models: 1) The rs2228479*A existed in the human gene pool before the Neanderthal–AMH divergence and was drifted to very low frequency in modern Africans whereas preserved in the Neanderthals and modern Eurasians (i.e., the “ancestral polymorphism model”), 2) recent gene flow from modern Eurasians to Africans, or 3) independent origin (such as recurrent mutation)."


They reject (1) but consider (2) and (3) as feasible. That is, it originated independently in Africa or there was a recent flow into Africa carrying Neanderthal genes i.e. contemporary Eurasians, which is quite reasonable, nevertheless, I would add, Neanderthals could have entered Africa and mixed there with Massai in Kenya and Yoruba in Nigeria.


Another surprising find was that it appears ata 50% frequency among the Cheyenne people of America. That is high, and rather unique in the New World, where it is hardly found at all.


Below is a map with its global distribution:



It is important to point out that Norton, Werren, and Friedlaender,(2015) found this Val92Met polymorphism in over 600 Melanesians sampled on different islands, reporting that the frequency of the derived allele ranged from 4 to 33% yet it seemed to have no influence whatsoever on the skin or hair color of the individuals. This suggests that it must interact with other genes to define the tone of hair and skin.


The same thing can be seen in East Asians: they have black hair just like Africans - and unlike brown of fair haired Europeans- despite carrying this derived gene that promotes fair hair.


Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, October 18, 2019

Santa Elina: humans in Brazil 23,000 years ago


I cama across a paper Peopling South America's centre: the late Pleistocene site of Santa Elina, by Denis Vialou, Mohammed Benabdelhadi, James Feathers, Michel Fontugne and Agueda Vilhena Vialou (Antiquity, Volume 91, Issue 358, August 2017 , pp. 865-884) which reports about a site called Santa Elina in western Brazil which has evidence of human occupation some 23,000 years ago.


The paper states that "The crucial significance of Santa Elina for understanding the earliest period of known prehistoric settlement in South America lies in the close articulation of archaeological, palaeontological, sedimentological and chronological datasets from the site. Human presence is attested by: a) lithic materials manufactured on site with evidence of debitage and retouch; b) the bones of extinct megafauna (Glossotherium), partly brought into the shelter, and clearly associated with the lithics; and c) by hearth deposits identified throughout the sequence. The results from three complementary dating methods—14C, OSL (sediments) and U/Th (Glossotherium bones)—are in relative agreement with one another, and confirm the stratigraphic integrity of the depositional history at Santa Elina. The dates indicate two periods of human occupation, with a date of 23120±260 BP for the first, and a date of 10120±60 BP for the beginning of the second (Table 1). These dates confirm the association between archaeological artefacts and Glossotherium bones. Subsequent occupations terminated around 2000 BP."


This site is located roughly 50 miles (80 km) from the city of Cuaibá in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, close to South America's geographic center, and 1,000 miles from the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Far from Beringia, and far older than any other site.


Ornaments with holes on the ends, made from extinct sloth osteoderms. from Santa Elina site

How did humans reach central Brazil 23,000 years ago? Perhaps they arrived even earlier. They resettled the cave a second time some 10,000 years ago. Two separate events. Archeologists Agueda Vilhena Vialou and her husband Denis Vialou don't make any conjectures, they just state teir findings and facts. It is a pity that no human bones have been found at the site, to allow us to investigate the matter further.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Long strands of Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA in Melanesians


Most of us, non-Africans, carry tiny snippets of Neanderthal DNA inside of us, as part of our genome. This is because our ancestors had sex with Neanderthals as they moved across Eurasia, the children born from this admixture carried both Homo sapiens and Neanderthal DNA. Selection weeded out the nasty genes and dilution after countless generations of intra-human breeding watered down the Neanderthal DNA in our genomes, but we still carry roughly 1 to 3% of their DNA in us.


Humans also interbred with the mysterious Denisovans (in Asia), and Melanesians carry roughly 3 to 5% Denisovan DNA with them.


A paper by Ping Hsun Hsieh et al. published today, (Adaptive archaic introgression of copy number variants and the discovery of previously unknown human genes Science - 18 Oct 2019 Vol. 366, Issue 6463, eaax2083 DOI: 10.1126/science.aax2083) took a closer look at this admixture in Melanesians.


We usually carry small snippets of archaic DNA, moswt of these are merely single nucleotide changes, which is a switch in a "letter" of our genetic code, where one molecule (nucleotides are molecules that contain a phosphate group, a sugar group and a nitrogen base) changes for another, for instance an adenine nucleotide (A) changes for a thymine nucleotide (T) altering the genetic sequence.


These single nucleotide changes don't have much of an evolutionary impact, they are therefore immune to selection.


This paper looked for more significant changes: deletions and duplications, formally known as "Copy Number Variants" or CNVs.


And they found that Melanesians carry long strands of archaic DNA in their genes.


The images below are from the paper:



Deletions are parts of a DNA molecule that have been lost during replication. In general deletions are more deleterious than duplications.


Duplications are sections of DNA that are duplicated, as if they were copied and pasted. They are four times more common than deletions. They can be pasted adjacent to the original chunk, and this is known as "tandem duplication" -which are quite rare in humans- or somewhere else ("displaced duplication").


A duplicated section of DNA will of course be passed on to the descent of the mutant carrying it, and will be subjected to the forces of natural selection. If the mutation is beneficial, it will be conserved, but if it alters the metabolism of the person carrying it, selection will weed it out (the person may die or not have viable offspring).


This paper reported 37 CNVs in Melanesians, of which 19 came from Neanderthals and Denisovans. For instance two large chunks of archaich DNA: in chromosome 8, which came from Neanderthals, and in chromosome 16, inherited from Denisovans.

  • Chr. 8: Neanderthal with a duplication (38,000 base pairs -bp- long, carried by 44% of Melanesians), and a deletion (6,000 bp long.
  • Chr. 16: Denisovan, with two duplications. The first is 380,000 bp long and is found in 79% of the Melanesians that were sampled.

As a point of interest, the first Denisovan duplication lies next to DNA sequences linked to autism (Chromosome 16p11.2 critical region, are associated to roughly 1% of human autism cases).


Also, related to autism, is the region in chromosome 8 (8p21.3) affected by the Neanderthal CNVs. (see more).


The fact that these CNVs have survived tens of thousands of years means that they have contributed some positive trait, that helped those carrying it survive beter than those lacking it. Selective pressure therefore retained these changes as they provided an advantage to the "mutants".


As the paper is behind a paywall I have not been able to read the particulars, but I wonder why do Melanesians carry such large snippets of archaic DNA? Do we all carry long snippets of Neanderthal DNA and it hasn't yet been detected in Eurasians because nobody has looked for it or, on the other hand we don't carry any?


Did Melanesia have specific conditions that favored keeping these duplications while the rest of the world didn't? (certain diseases for instance which can be averted thanks to these CNVs).


The medical significance of these mutations will have to be investigated.


One of the images from the paper suggest that these particular mutations are very rare among non-Melanesians:



The CNVs had first been studied in a paper Global diversity, population stratification, and selection of human copy-number variation, by Peter H. Sudmant et al., (2015) published in Science 11 Sep 2015: Vol. 349, Issue 6253, aab3761 DOI: 10.1126/science.aab3761. It too noticed the high level of Denisovan CNVs, in Melanesians, but not in Australian Aboriginals. They calculated its origin 440 kya among the Denisovans. They mention a chr 16 duplicaton:


"a duplication polymorphism restricted to modern Oceanic populations yet also present in the genome of the archaic Denisova hominin. This 225–kilo–base pair (kbp) duplication includes two microRNA genes and is almost fixed among human Papuan-Bougainville genomes".


This paper (Sudmat el al.,) also studied CNVs among modern humans and were surprised to find that when comparing the difference between Africans and non-Africans regarding deletions and duplications using a parameter they named "Deletion load", "... Africans exhibited an apparent higher deletion load than non-African populations ... Duplications showed no such effect."



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Tasmanian Tiger may not be extinct after all


Ihave always had a soft spot for the Tasmanian Tiger (or Tassie) because it was one of the first animals (I believe that the dodo was the first one that really struck me) that made me aware that extinction was irreversible. An animal once gone, was gone forever.


Mammoths, dinosaurs, wolly rhinos, well, they were things of the distant past but a dog-like marsupial like the Tasmanian Tiger was different, modern "civilized" humans had wiped them out (the same happened to the defensless dodos of Mauritius, and the aulk in the North Atlantic), and I found if very sad.


The Tasmanian Tiger or Thylacinus cynocephalus (dog-headed pouched-dog) was hunted to extinction by Australian shepherds of Tasmania a few decades before I was born.


At one time this meat eating marsupial had a range that spanned all of Australia and New Guinea. Though it was later confined to the island of Tasmania (hence its name of Tasmanian Tiger - and also Tasmanian wolf).


They were large dog-like creatures: 1 to 1.3 meters long (40 - 50 51 inches) plus a tail 20-35 in. long (50-65 cm). They weighed between 33 to 66 lbs. (15-30 kg). And had 15 to 20 dark stripes on their back. Their fur was yellowish-brown colored.


Unfortunately for the Tassies, dogs brought by the Aboriginal people (dingos) competed with the Thylacine in its same ecological niche, and were far more successful. Around 2,000 years ago the Thylacines became extinct on the mainland, but managed to survive on the island of Tasmania, near Southern Australia.


There were several species of Thylacines over the past 16 Million years in Australia. The Tasmanian Tiger appeared about 4 Million years ago and they were very successful predators. But being a predator was the cause of their downfall. Their predilection for mutton provoked its demise: to protect the sheep farms, the Tasmanian government paid bounties for their dead bodies from 1886 to 1909. Thousands of Tassies were killed.


By the time some action was taken to protect it, it was far too late. A few wild thylacines were captured and although the species was protected in July 1936, two months later the last survivor of the species died in the Zoo at Hobart, Tasmania.


Tasmanian Tigers in captivity

So it is very good news that the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) has released a document describing eight sightings of Tassies (Tylacines) in Tasmania between 2016 and 2019.


Who knows, maybe the Tasmanian Tiger is still alive somewhere in the forests of Tasmania.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Another paper on "Out of China" (H sapiens originated in China)


A few days ago I wrote a post about an Asian origin for modern humans, written by Shi Huang. Today I found an earlier paper where Huang is one of the authors Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA (Dejian Yuan et al., 2018). As expected mankind originated in China and spread across the globe (into Africa too!).


The paper is quite interesting as it details its objections to the current Out of Africa theory and also highlights some interesting points:


On Negritos and Australian Aboriginals: "Analyses of autosomes, Y and mtDNA all suggest that Denisovan like humans were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures and ancestors of South Asia Negritos and Aboriginal Australians.".


"Origins of Negritos and Aboriginal Australians. The Andamanese and the African pygmies seem obviously related in multiple aspects, including traits, Y relationship with the African megahaplogroup ABDE, and mtDNA haplotype M being closely related to African L.
... Using the published genomes of 10 individuals from the Jarawa (JAR) and Onge (ONG) populations in the Andaman Islands (19), we found that Andamanese are relatively closer to Africans...
We also examined the Aboriginal Australian (AUA) samples ... These results showed similarity between AUA and Negritos, indicating similar ancestry in Neanderthals and Denisovans.
"


On Africans, Chimpanzees, Denisovans and Neanderthals: "... previous studies have found Neanderthals to be outgroup to AMH and used D-statistics to show Neanderthal gene flow into non-Africans but oddly not Africans (9, 10).
The assumption of D-statistics is that all modern groups are equidistant to chimpanzees so that presence of derived alleles (different from chimpanzees) was due to gene flow from Neanderthal. If in fact Africans are closer to chimpanzees or carrying more ancestral alleles in general, the conclusion of gene flow into non-Africans would become invalid. We examined this by measuring genetic distance between 1000 genomes and 10 previously sequenced chimpanzee genomes (49). Using the random 255K SNPs set, we found closer hom distance between Africans and chimpanzees than between non-Africans and chimpanzees....
Making use of the published Neanderthal genomes (9, 10, 50), we calculated the genetic distance in slow SNPs between 1000 genomes and Neanderthals (Altai, Vindija 33.16, 33.25, 33.26, and Mezmaiskaya) or Denisovan (Fig. 4A). These ancient genomes showed closer distance to Africans except Vi33.25 to ASN and Vi33.26 to AMR. Denisovan was closer to Africans than Neanderthals were...
"


The previous conclusions are completely opposite to current prevailing theories (Africans lack links to both Denisovans and Neanderthals as any admixture with these groups took place in Eurasia with Eurasian people that migrated out of Africa).


On SE Asian features in Africa: "Fossils or traits indicating AMH migration from East Asia into Africa or Europe have been noted before. First, native Africans such as Khoisans are well known to have certain East Asian features such as shoveling teeth, epicanthic fold, and lighter skins. Mbuti pygmies look very much like the Andamanese. The much lower frequency of shoveling teeth in African fossils and Khoisan relative to ancient and modern Chinese suggests that this type of teeth could only originate in China with its African presence due to migration. The type of shoveling teeth found in Neanderthals and Pleistocene Homo from Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos may either be a different type from that of Asians and Africans or come from early disposal of Homo from Asia to Europe (81, 82)...".


I found the article amusing and their arguments against the "Out of Africa" theory worth investigating in depth.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

An early Out of Africa 2.48 Million years ago


We have posted on the hominin remains found at Dmanisi in Georgia, and evidence of hominin presence in China 2.1 Million yeras ago (Ma). A recent paper provides some more information on this very early migration of hominins out of Africa 2.48 Ma, long before the first Homo sapiens appeared.


A few months ago we mentioned a new paper reported in the media that pushes the Out of Africa migration by pre-sapiens hominins to 2.4 Ma. We have just found it published: it is the paper by Giancarlo Scardia, Fabio Parenti, Daniel P. Miggins, AxelG erdes, Astolfo G.M. Araujo and Walter A.Neves, (Chronologic constraints on hominin dispersal outside Africa since 2.48?Ma from the Zarqa Valley, Jordan, Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol 219, 1 September 2019, pp 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.06.007). It tells us that they found evidence of hominin presence in an area that those who would later reach Dmanisi and China had to cross on their trek out of Africa: The Middle East.


They mention the presence of hominins in China some 2.1 Ma, and in North Africa (2.4 Ma), - and we add the Homo georgicus found in Georgia (1.75 Ma) to their list.


They also report that even though the Levant does not have any sites as old as those mentioned above, they found stone tools in the Dawqara Formation sediments in Zarqa Valley, in Jordan that were buried some 300,000 years earlier thant the Chinese tools.


As Jordan lies in the corridor that any out-of-Africa Homo habilis would use to exit Africa, they conclude that these artifacts were made by these hominins.


They found Oldowan tools together with fossils of mammals in the Dawqara Formation. They were not found in a site (a camp site for instance), the tools were transported to where they were found by water and buried by riverine sediments. They dated these sediments to 2.48 Ma.


These Oldowan tools are primitive and predate the later Acheulean tools developed by Homo erectus. So clearly these hominins were Homo habilis.


This puts an early date for the first hominin migration out of Africa and into Eurasia.


The Abstract is the following:


" Recent discoveries constrain the presence of hominins in North Africa since ca. 2.4?Ma and in China since ca. 2.1?Ma, providing a new temporal framework for the earliest migration out of Africa. No Paleolithic sites of such age exist in the Levant, the natural corridor between Africa and Asia. The Dawqara Formation in the Zarqa Valley, Jordan, has been known since the early 1980s because of the presence of artifacts at different stratigraphic levels within its fluvial sediments, consisting of choppers, cores, and flakes.
Although most of the artifacts display signs of transport, they bear unambiguous evidence of manufacture, and document hominin presence in the Zarqa Valley during the deposition of Dawqara Formation. Based on integrated chronology provided by paleomagnetic, 40Ar⁄39Ar, and U-Pb dating methods, our study shows that the Dawqara Formation was deposited between 2.52+⁄-?0.01?Ma and the Matuyama–Olduvai geomagnetic reversal (1.95?Ma). By linear interpolation, the artifact-bearing stratigraphic levels within the Dawqara Formation have ages of ca. 2.48?Ma, 2.24?Ma, 2.16?Ma, 2.06?Ma, and 1.95?Ma, respectively, possibly documenting continuous hominin presence in the Zarqa Valley.
These new ages for the Dawqara assemblage constrain the earliest hominin dispersal out of Africa to the beginning of the Pleistocene, and pre-date by ca. 300 kyr the hominin occupation of Chinese Loess Plateau.
"


The North African tools are the 1.9-million- and 2.4-million-year-old artifacts and stone tool-cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria., Sahnouni M, et al., Science. 2018 Dec 14;362(6420):1297-1301. doi: 10.1126/science.aau0008. Epub 2018 Nov 29.


Sahnouni suggests that these old Algerian tools (slightly younger thant the Oldowan tools from East Africa - 2.6 Ma) "shows that ancestral hominins inhabited the Mediterranean fringe in northern Africa much earlier than previously thought. The evidence strongly argues for early dispersal of stone tool manufacture and use from East Africa or a possible multiple-origin scenario of stone technology in both East and North Africa.".


However there are even older tools found in Asia, in India to be more specific, that are 2.6 Ma. Were these the first hominins to leave Africa?


Last but not least, these Zarqa Valley "artifacts" have been dug up in a fluvial environment not unlike the setting where the Calico California stone tools were found, yet these American artifacts have been disregarded by orthodox science and labeled as geofacts (not man made, but shaped by natural forces).



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Australian Pygmies, fact and fiction


Australian pygmies are a source of controversy because mainstream science and the Aboriginal indigenous people oppose the notion that pygmies were the first humans to inhabit the continent.


Right wing supporters on the other hand believe that the pygmies came first and that the Aborigines took the continent from the pygmies.


Their argument goes as follows: Pygmies arrived first, the aboriginal people came later and drove the pygmies to extinction, the British were just another wave of migrants doing what the aboriginal people had done before. So why should invaders such as aboriginals have more rights over the land than the British. After all, the Aboriginals took it from the original Pygmie people.


A quick online search shows that there are not many references to pygmy people in Australia. I didn't manage to find anything recorded by the first European explorers or during the period of British exploration and occupation.


Most of the literature points back to an article published in Quadrant (Keith Windschuttle and Tim Gillin, The extinction of the Australian Pygmies, 2002).


Quadrant is a right-wing magazine (see what mediabiasfactcheck.com has to say about how far to the right they are), so Quadrant would have a reason to back the pygmy theory because it undermines the aboriginal people's claims of being the first people in Australia.


My Search for Pygmies in Australia


This is what I have found out about pygmies down under:


1. Pygmies are part of the Aboriginal people's mythology.


There is an Aboriginal myth, about the origin of the platypus (Source), which mentions the "small people" or "Dinderi". They hunted water snakes in the Brisbane River in what is now Queensland, but these managed to turn them into platypuses. But does this myth mean that there were a tribe of pygmies (the Dinderi)?


You can also read about Short people in Cape York Peninsula, Northern Queensland, Australia.


2. Short stature people lived in Queensland recently.


An article titled Pygmy elder faces eviction, published in 2007 (Queensland CourierMail August 25, 2007), reported that Lizzy Woods, 105 years old, was the "... oldest surviving matriarch of the Jirrbal rainforest people. ... the sole surviving link to the pygmy 'white cockatoo' tribe – most of whom stood less than 122cm (4ft) tall – of the Misty Mountain region near Tully.
... the 110cm-tall [3.6 ft] elder [said] 'I was born in the rainforest. I grew up chasing kangaroo and picking berries off the trees. I belong here. This is my land. The pygmy tribe – that is my mob'.
"


3. An anthropologist also reported the Dinderi myth.


Lindsay Winterbotham interviewed an Aboriginal man born in 1887, Gaiarbaus and wrote (1957) the book "Gaiarbaus story of the Jinibara tribe of south east Queensland (and its neighbours)", it was never published, but the book exists and you can read its index online, and this index mentions: "Pygmies (Dinderi), beliefs in south east Queensland tribes".


Winterbotham was advised by Norman Tindale during his interviews, and it is Tindale who is quoted in the article published by Quadrant.


3. Tindale and the Trihybrid theory


Tindale and American anthropologist Joseph Birdsell, worked together for over 50 years, starting in 1938. They put forward the theory that: The pygmoid and negrito people(the word negrito is Spanish, and means "small black people") living in the rainforests in Northern Queensland in the 1930s were the remnants of the first wave of humans to reach the vast Australian continent. These tiny people were later pushed in to the island of Tasmania (hence the name of "Tasmanoids" that Tindale and Birdsell gave them) and the deep rainforests by two later waves of humans invading Australia.


The two scientists later renamed them "Barrinean" after Lake Barrine. Yoy can read this theory in this 1953 newspaper article.


This "Trihybrid" theory included a second wave of pale skinned "Murrayians" which were supposed to be linked to the Ainu people of Japan, and the third wave of robust dark skinned "Carpentarians" possibly linked to primitive Indian tribes.


This website has some photos of these three "types" of humans proposed by Birdsell and Tindale as the successive waves that peopled Australia.


This theory has been discredited by later research (see this paper for example), but it was not invented by Tindale, I found an earlier publication suggesting the same idea:


In Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia, 1922, an article (Cylindro-Conical and cornute stones from the Darling River and Cooper Creek, Robert Pulleine. pp.304-308) mentions Albert Churchward:


"If we accept the views of Churchward, now gaining the attention of anthropologists, that mankind originated in the great lake districts of Africa, we find opened up a path which leads to an understanding of the origin of our aborigines and their beliefs. In his two books, "Signs and Symbols of - Primordial Man" and "The Origin and Evolution of Mankind," he pictures the Pygmy exodus throughout the world and their displacement and annihilation by the people of the second Nilotic exodus to which our aborigines, accord- ing to him, belong. He states that the Pygmies of the first Nilotic invasion were displaced in Australia and eventually only remained in Tasmania. "


Churchward had been writing about pygmies since the early 1900s, so he surely influenced Tindale.


4. There are "pygmies" in New Guinea


New Guinea has small people too, reported as early as 1910 (paper in Nature), as recently as 2013, and in between too (see this paper from 1961 (it mentions the trihybrid theory and Tindale).


Closing Comments


Probably different waves of humans colonized Australia, starting with Homo erectus and ending with the British. The Aboriginal people are without any doubt, the rightful original people of Australia, the first people to successfuly colonize the continent and live there for over 50,000 years. However it is also likely that other groups, linked to the Negrito people of Southeastern Asia and New Guinea also settled in Australia, whether it took place before, during or after the arrival of the Aboriginals is a trivial point.


But what if the Aboriginal myths aren't about the Negrito people, and instead refer to "small people" like the "Hobbits" of Indonesia? A distant relative of us humans.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2019 by Austin Whittall © 

Saturday, October 12, 2019

Neanderthal admixture in Africans (into Africa? or back to Africa?)


Time and time again you read that only non-Africans carry Neanderthal DNA because it was the wave of humans leaving Africa in an Out-of-Africa migration that encountered the Neanderthals in Eurasia and mated with them, mixing our and their genes. Africans who remained in the cradle of mankind, didn't admix and therefore carry no Neanderthal DNA.


A paper published in 2018 (Neandertal signatures in modern human mitochondrial genome haplogroups?, Renata C. Ferreira, Camila R. Rodrigues, James R. Broach,Marcelo R. S. Briones, BioRxiv, 18/Sep/2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/190363) puts this idea upside down: the authors state that "...contrary to what is observed in the nuclear genome, African mitochondrial haplogoups have more potential Neandertal signatures than Asian and European haplogroups.".


Let's look into this surprising and contradictory finding.


The authors repeat the current orthodox view of an admixture outside of Africa:


"Intercrosses between Neandertals and ancient Homo sapiens lineages, or archaic Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) who migrated from Africa into the Middle East and Europe in the last 50,000 years might explain the presence of Neandertal signatures in extant human genomes (Prüfer et al., 2014; Simonti et al., 2016). The spatio-temporal overlap of Neandertals and AMH is estimated to be approximately 22,000 years since the first AMH arrived in Europe around 50,000 years ago..."


Neanderthal mtDNA is liniked to certain diseases in modern humans, and the study found evidence of this too, and this included Africans: "Four of these disease associated N-SNVs were observed in African haplogroups (L0, L1, L2, L3, 10 L4, L5 and L6)", N-SNVs stands for Neanderthal SNVs. and the haplogroups they mention are considered the oldest and most basal ones. So how did the Neanderthal DNA admix with these "basal" haplogroups?


The autors explain this as follows: "A back to Africa hypothesis has been proposed in which humans from Eurasia returned to Africa and impacted a wide range of sub-Saharan populations (Henn et al., 2012). Our data suggest that Neandertal signatures might be present in all major African haplogroups which supports the “Back to Africa” contribution to the modern mitochondrial African pool."


They also conclude that modern human males introgressed with female Neanderthals more frequently in the Africans than in the Europeans (where the opposite took place: modern women were impregnated by Neanderthal men):


"Our data is compatible with a scenario in which the AMH-Neandertal crosses occur in Europeans, East Asians and African lines of descent. However, in the African haplogroups the crosses between AMH males and Neandertal females would have a higher frequency than in European lines of descent, where the reverse crosses would be predominant. Based on the comparison of Neandertal signatures in nuclear and mitochondrial genome haplogroups we hypothesize that the African lines of descent would have a higher female Neandertal contribution whereas European lines of descent would have higher male Neandertal contribution."


It is interesting to point out that Africans, Eurasians and Neanderthals share the N-SNV 16,278, which "is found in African haplogroups 34 (L0, L1, L2, L5 and L6) and two Eurasian haplogroups (X3, U2c and P2) and in all Neandertal sequences..."


What is also interesting is the link between Amerindians, Eurasians and the Altai Neanderthals, hinting at an admixture in Siberia : "... N-SNV 16.298 is found only in Eurasian-Native American 36 haplogroups (V1, V2, M8, C1, C4, C7 and Z1) and only in the Altai Neandertal."


The heat map (Fig. 4) in the paper shows a surprisingly strong introgression of Neanderthal genes in Africans, compared to Europeans, Asians, people from Oceania and Amerindians:



You would expect this admixign to have happened in non-Africans, instead it took place with Africans.


Could this enrichement of African DNA be caused by an actual into-Africa migration? One where modern humans -of Eurasian origin- with Neanderthal admixture entered Africa, and admixed there with the locals?


The gradient displayed in the image above, from a low (Oceania - Americas) to mid (East and western Asia - Europe) to high (Africa) Neanderthal genetic content clearly marks a migration path through Neanderthal territory (central Eurasia) into Africa.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2014 by Austin Whittall © 
Hits since Sept. 2009:
Copyright © 2009-2018 by Austin Victor Whittall.
Todos los derechos reservados por Austin Whittall para esta edición en idioma español y / o inglés. No se permite la reproducción parcial o total, el almacenamiento, el alquiler, la transmisión o la transformación de este libro, en cualquier forma o por cualquier medio, sea electrónico o mecánico, mediante fotocopias, digitalización u otros métodos, sin el permiso previo y escrito del autor, excepto por un periodista, quien puede tomar cortos pasajes para ser usados en un comentario sobre esta obra para ser publicado en una revista o periódico. Su infracción está penada por las leyes 11.723 y 25.446.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other - except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without prior written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.

Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy before accessing this blog.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

Patagonian Monsters - http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/