This is a finding originally published in 2018, which I read this year (Spanish language newspaper article), it states that remains dating back to 40,000 years ago have been discovered in a cave in the Argentine Andean province of Catamarca.
The research and dig was cut short by the covid-19 pandemic. The leading scientist, Carlos Aschero, reported that the cave known as Cacao 1.A., located at a height of 3,780 meters (12,400 ft) in a dry, arid and desertic area of the Puna highlands, produced some stone tools, human and animal hairs and two Sclidotherium (large sloths) rib bones that were worked by humans. This area was more humid and had lagoons and more vegetation 40,000 years ago.
Aschero visited the site many times, in 2013 he had found fossil megatherium dung 12,500 years old, now he dug up more dung and beneath it, two ribs and five stone tools laid in a horizontal position. He had them dated in the US and the dung was 37,000 years old, and the ribs over 39,000. "We were stopped by the panemic, but we plan to go back." said Aschero.
He adds that "there are some parallel marks, perpendicular to the rib edge, that surprise me and make me remember some marks that appear on bones from the Mousterian... like if they were calendar elements". Note that Mousterian is the technology of Neanderthals in Europe. So he is assuming these are not H. sapiens marks.
Regarding the human hair he says "in the matrix where the (stone) artifacts were laid, we came across a lock of hair, cut transversally, with three dates that go from 40.500 to 38.000 years BP. We are sure the hair is human. A forensic expert of the Federal Police analyzed it and concluded 'or it is human or it is of a primate'... sieving the material we found loose hairs with bulb, which is very important because it would allow DNA studies".
He supposes they were Neanderthal and says that these remains are not usually found because "they are buried under earth covered by many meters of sediment. Maybe there were not more thn a few tens of thousands of persons, small and dispersed populations ... there is another problem. Did the Neanderthal type populations navigate or not? That is another problembecause they could have come down the coast sailing so that the speed they populated (America) could have been much faster, specially along the Pacific coast."
He concludes that they could be either Neanderthal or Denisovan in the final paragraph of the article.
Let's wait for further work at this site and discoveries that confirm or disprove these theories.
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2021 by Austin Whittall ©
If those hair samples are proven to belong to Neanderthals (or maybe Homo Erectus), they can shed light to wildman myths of Patagonia Natives (and maybe such myths of South American Natives, too.)
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you posting again!.
ReplyDeleteI think that at least some of the evidences at Cacao 1a site are indeed hard to refute.
A couple of years ago I have seen detailed images of some of the findings; the sloth´s rib and the lithics.
To be honest, the claimed cut marks on the rib do not seem to me as 100% convincing, as some of them appear definitely as vascular impressions, while others, that are more difficult to interpret, may perhaps be considered as “not so common” anthropic marks (??)...or may not, depending on the point of view.
However, even when the rib may be (in my own opinion) somewhat far from being a conclusive proof of human activity at Cacao site… instead, it constitutes an excellent marker of age (as it was reliable dated by C14 at 40 Ka or so) for at least some of the lithics, which were found, as long as I know, in close association with it…and these tools seem unquestionably human made.
In other words, the main evidence from Cacao 1a site (that is; the lock of human hair dated at 40Ka) can be strongly supported by lithics coming from a geological layer that is highly suspected to have been deposited contemporaneously…
Aschero formally presented the findings at Cacao 1a on May 21,2018 in Buenos Aires (I was there as a simple assistant), and they were debated with 7 professionals from the local mainstream. Although I remember that he was “kindly treated” (it could not have been otherwise due to his reputation an also his age…), I would say that in general terms he received few signs of authentic credibility…as with the remarkable exception of one of the archaeologists ( Lic. Luis Orquera), the others, sadly, appeared to be more concerned in defending their own beliefs (that is; some sort of “impregnable barricade” at 14/15ka for the earliest peopling of the region) than in opening their minds by objectively analyzing the evidence presented.
On the contrary (and fortunately), Cacao site received considerable interest from other currents of opinion of the archaeology, such as from a French team featuring the well known archaeologist Eric Boeda. As a result of this, an integral program for OSL dating at this site was initiated in 2018, according to which several dosimeters were buried and samples of sediments were extracted…being the results expected not until the incoming year (I don’t know if they are yet available…)
Let us hope that future evidence, such as the above mentioned and/or other from DNA studies focused in shedding light on the human lineage involved, may lead to further support for this amazing site… and also may give the credit that Carlos Aschero and his team really deserve.
Very interesting post
Best regards
Marcelo
Comment part 1 of 2 (Urisahatu)
ReplyDeletePossible 40,000 year old human hair in Argentina???
Very interesting. What if the so-called archaic "ghost" gene did not originate in Africa yet came from the south?
Meaning what if all Australoid(-like) people / humans in the southern tips of the continents Australia(+Tasmania?), (South-)America and (South-)Africa actually migrated from Antarctica?
That could (would?) explain why humans in the south seem to be older and more archaic than their northern cousins and also explain the ghost gene seemingly not having any direct migration connection. Basically the migration would not be from west (Africa) to east (America) yet from south (Antarctica) to north (through Australia, America and Africa into Asia and Europe aka Eurasia).
Also, Hypothetically the so-called Noah line would come from Sahul (Papua-Australia-Tasmania) into Southeast Asia, South Asia towards Ararat when taking into consideration that many petroglyphs in Gobleki Tepe are similar if not identical to ancient Australian Aboriginal symbols.
Comment 2 of 2 (Urisahatu)
ReplyDeletePerhaps the argument on the Principal Modifications of Mankind ;Journal of the Ethnological Society of London (1870); according to Prof. Thomas Henry Huxley should be revisited.
Thomas H. Huxley believed that the so-called Melanochroi (dark whites) were an intermixture between the Xanthochroi (fair whites) and the Australoids.
By the late 19th century the Melanochroi became (known as) the Mediterranean race.
This is very important regarding the human migration into Europe and the British Isles.
In 2018 a team from the Natural History Museum extracted Nuclear DNA from a bone from Cheddar Man ;human skeleton excavated in 1903 in Gough's Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England.
Through DNA results it is believed that Cheddar Man's skin color is dark. Cheddar Man's Y-DNA I2a2.
When you follow the migration from Y-DNA I2a2 to its origins you will notice it will bypass Africa and go straight to Asia where the trail further back becomes unclear yet picks up in East Asia and Southeast Asia.
From Gough's Cave, Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England; Eastwards:
Y-DNA I2a1a in Sardinia and I2a1b in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Mediterranean),
Y-DNA I-M438 place of origin South-Eastern / Eastern Europe - Time of origin: 33,000 BP
Y-DNA I-M170 place of origin Central Europe, time of origin: 42,900 BP
Y-DNA IJ place of origin Western Asia, time of origin: 49,700 BP
Y-DNA IJ, K place of origin Asia (unknown location in Asia), time of origin: 59,000 BP
Y-DNA H, IJK place of origin Asia (unknown location in Asia), time of origin: 59,000 BP
Y-DNA G, HIJK place of origin East Asia/Southeast Asia, time of origin: 59,000 BP+
With this migration trajectory or path one can easily follow a line from at least Southeast Asia (if not further east-/southeast Sahul region) through the Asian and European continent ending in the British Isles.
Also notice the time of origin for Y-DNA GHIJK being 59,000 BP, meaning Australian Aboriginals 65,000+ and Homo Luzonensis 67,000 BP ;who are further east- / southeast; are older.
It could mean and perhaps explain that the people with Y-DNA GHIJK and their offspring / branches like Y-DNA I (see Cheddar Man Y-DNA I2a2) have a relatively strong Australoid appearance (Australoid skull-type, dark wavy / curly hair, dark eyes, dark skin etc.) some gradually becoming fair skinned through selection and interbreeding, others replaced by new migrants.
Furthermore the migration trajectory of Y-DNA I2a2 shows that Africa is not the origin for the dark skinned Cheddar Man in England.
Hope this comment is helpful in anyway for open discussion to come closer to the truth.
Urisahatu
Note: In February 8, 2018 it was reported in The Irish Post that the First Irish People had dark black skin similar to Cheddar Man in England.
Links:
Cheddar Man: DNA shows early Briton had dark skin - February 23, 2018
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42939192
First Irish people had 'dark to black' skin similar to Cheddar Man in Britain - February 8, 2018
https://www.irishpost.com/news/first-irish-people-dark-black-skin-similar-cheddar-man-britain-149552