Research published in April of this year (Q. Ruan, H. Li, P. Xiao, et. al., Quina lithic technology indicates diverse Late Pleistocene human dynamics in East Asia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 122 (14) e2418029122, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2418029122 (2025).) found stone tools from the Middle Pleistocene in Southwestern China. This is important because there had been the notion that there had not been any "Middle Paleolithic" lithic tools in the region.
The technology used to make these tools is very similar to the Neanderthal's Mousterian knapping technique found in Western Eurasia.
The map below (Source) shows the sites across Eurasia including Longtan, and the lithic technologies found at each of them. The Neanderthal territory is marked with a brown tone overlay from Europe, across the Middle East, Caucasus into Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan into Altai. The arrows mark the flow of "know-how" into China, from the Altai region, and also from SE India, where Levallois tools have also been found.
Mousterian tools are quite variable, and there are different variants depending on the strategies used to knap the stone core; these are the Levallois, the Laminar, the Discoid, and the Quina, all found in western Eurasia. This research reports it at the Longtan site, located in Yunnan Province, Southwest China.
The paper says that "Our study further deepens the understanding of biocultural dynamics of Homo sapiens, Denisovans, and possibly other hominins in the Late Pleistocene of East Asia." There was a very complex demographic situation in that region at that time.
Indigenous or Imported?
These were not modern humans that arrived early in Asia; the authors clearly state that " Middle Paleolithic sites in southern China exhibiting distinct African Middle Stone Age technological elements remain undocumented. Consequently, from a material cultural perspective, we suggest that it is currently premature to support the early dispersal model along the southern route with the arrival in China before ca. 45 ka."
The authors papers suggest an alternative explanation: local East Asian hominins evolved here and developed this type of tools by progressing from similar older stone artifacts made by Densiovans around 200 ky ago. Another option is that they were aquired by know-how dispersion: "implying dynamics of knowledge transmission and/or population dispersal from western Eurasia. Dispersion may be supported by evidence of the coexistence of Denisovans and Neanderthals in southern Siberia since ca. 200 ka (the earliest appearance of Neanderthals just overlies the earliest layer occupied by Denisovans), which has not only indicated the early eastward migration event of Neanderthals but also the genetic exchanges between the two distinct human groups."
The paper points out that "If dispersal or migration is relevant to the Longtan Quina, we would expect evidence of Quina systems in wide areas of Central and South Asia; however, none have been reported to date. Further evidence is required to test the above proposed hypotheses."
So, even though the study does not confirm the presence of Neanderthals in China 55,000 years ago, their relatives, the Denisovans were firmly established in the region. And it is possible that they developed the techniques to knap stones more efficiently, resembling the Neanderthal technology.
The history of how humans peopled Asia is complex and exciting times lie ahead as we learn more about it.
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall ©
No comments:
Post a Comment