Translate

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


Showing posts with label homo erectus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homo erectus. Show all posts

Saturday, August 1, 2026

Archaic Admixture (within Africa) a new paper (Science Jul. 30, 2026)


A paper published in the non-peer reviewed BioRxiv last March (see my post on it) has been now published in Science, on July 30, 2026 (Yulin Zhang et al., Recovering signatures of archaic hominin introgression using ancestral recombination graphs. Science 0,eaef8874 DOI:10.1126/science.aef8874). It discusses ghost introgressions in modern human populations. My original post highlighted its main points. Today, re-reading the article, I found some interesting points, which I discuss below.


Heterozygosity and archaic introgression


All research about Amerindians and all other non-Africans, stresses that they have higher homozygosity than Africans, a signal of a lower diversity in their genes. They are less heterozygous. I have argued in several posts that the higher heterozygosity observed in Africans could come from their recent admixture with archaics that survived until recently, within Africa.


This paper reported that (highlighting is mine) "Several additional lines of evidence support our results of ghost ancestry in modern humans. First, we find that genomic regions harboring ghost ancestry exhibit elevated heterozygosity levels, a pattern also observed for Neanderthal and Denisovan segments (fig. S25). The elevation in heterozygosity is consistent with a model of introgression from a deeply divergent lineage..."


The authors note that sub-Saharan Africans have the highest levels of super-archaic ghost admixture, and non-Africans have much lower values, but they attribute it to a bottleneck effect following the Out Of Africa (OOA) migration, ignoring the possibility of recent admixture within Africa: "We find that ghost ancestry peaks are over-represented in sub-Saharan African populations relative to non-African populations, which is consistent with the lower genetic diversity in non-Africans."


Africans and admixture there, in Africa


Regarding "deserts" where ghost presence is lacking, they attribute it to the same cause, the OOA migration: !We also identify 97 deserts of ghost ancestry (i.e., regions that are at least 10 Mbp long and have less than 0.1% frequency of ghost ancestry). These deserts are only found in non-African populations, with nearly half (43.3%) shared between different non-African groups, likely formed during the OOA bottleneck (supplementary section S6.3 and figs. S37 and S38). We do not identify any ghost ancestry deserts in sub-Saharan Africans." A plausible explanation for this is that ghosts introgressed within Africa, leading to a total lack of deserts there, while in the rest of the world, deserts point at a lack of superarchaic admixing.


In my original post I highlighted their comment about the source of the ghost population, I will once again quote the authors comments: "The ghost lineage, with a divergence time similar to Neanderthals, could plausibly correspond to Middle Pleistocene Homo groups or African Homo heidelbergensis populations that directly admixed with modern human ancestors before the OOA dispersal. For the super-archaic lineage, one potential candidate—compatible with the split time of approximately 1.8 Mya—is Homo erectus, as suggested by earlier studies."



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, July 31, 2026

Denisovan may have split from Homo erectus


A recent research article (not peer-reviewed) published in BioRxiv (Scalable ARG-free Detection of Denisovan-mediated Superarchaic Introgression Reveals Heterogeneous Patterns across Populations. Noel McAllister, Sebastian Zöllner, Xinjun Zhang, bioRxiv 2026.06.25.734355; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.25.734355), used simulations based on a specific computing program to explore the sites in our genomes where superarchaic introgression may be found. Introgression that reached us via Denisovans.


It looks into the genome of modern populations and finds that HLA/MHC loci have higher introgression scores than other sites. This, according to the authors, "...is consistent with previous evidence that immune-related loci retain archaic variants. At the same time, HLA/MHC is among the most polymorphic regions of the human genome and has been shaped by pathogen-mediated and balancing selection, both of which can preserve deeply divergent haplotypes and generate unusually deep local genealogies..." However, they caution that these high scores may not only be due to archaic introgression: " ...HLA/MHC is also one of the clearest examples of long-term balancing selection, which also preserves deeply diverged haplotypes without recent introgression... We therefore interpret the HLA/MHC signal cautiously. It should not be treated as definitive evidence for superarchaic ancestry by itself. Nonetheless, its repeated elevation across all three populations is notable and suggests that immune-related regions may be especially informative targets for future local haplotype, ARG-based, and functional analyses."


It makes sense that alleles linked to immunity, received from superarchaics, if they provide a benefit, will be preserved across generations.


The paper then discusses Denisovans and mentions an interesting fact, that Denisovans could have evolved from Homo erectus: "Our results also intersect with the recent paleoproteomic evidence suggesting that some Denisovan superarchaic ancestry may ultimately derive from populations related to H. erectus."


It also notes that population structure can be mistaken for introgression: "A further limitation is that deep population structure and introgression remain intrinsically difficult to separate. Structured ancestral populations can generate old coalescent times and divergent haplotypes, and some recent models have shown that deep structure may explain signals previously interpreted as archaic or ghost admixture."


It presents a scenario that I had not read about before: "Hominin evolution may have involved both long-lived structured populations and episodic admixture among deeply diverged groups." Which is very plausible, we can imagine, especially in Africa this scenario, with archaic populations and ancestral modern humans living in isolated, deeply structured populations admixing sporadically, and adding diversity to the Homo sapiens group.


The other branches of the human tree also followed that pattern, with Neanderthals in western Eurasia and Denisovans in the Eastern part of Asia. Mixing with modern humans as our ancestors met them.


Homo erectus has been shown to have admixed with Denisovans (see this post), but, this article suggests that Denisovans evolved from Homo erectus, which is a very reasonable assumption. I recently posted about Denisovans and Homo heidelbergensis being related (also Neanderthals), it is possible that the common ancestor for these groups evolved from erectus (via Homo antecessor) in Eurasia.


Evidence seems to be building a stronger case for an Eurasian origin for hominins.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, July 17, 2026

Duration of the Out Of Africa Migration, it was much slower than believed


Reading a paper about the peopling of Sundaland by Homo erectus (Husson et al., 2022, Javanese Homo erectus on the move in SE Asia circa 1.8 Ma, I learned something about the time it took these ancient hominins to people this southeastern part of Asia, and it was much longer than I expected.


The authors report that " H. erectus reached Java and dwelled at Sangiran, Java, ca. 1.8 Ma.... The dispersal of H. erectus across Sundaland occurred over at least tens to hundreds kyr."


Migration pathways of H. erectus across Sundaland during Early Pleistocene. (a) Reconstructed landscape ca. 1.8 Ma (model goSPL32). The underlying physiography, with overprinted modeled rivers, converts into a map of resistance to displacement that serves to compute the migration pathways, either using a least-cost path algorithm shown for the Myanmar entry point (purple), or a mechanistic movement model (SiMRiv30) exemplified for the Vietnam entry point (orange). Blue star locates the Thailand entry point.. Husson et al., 2022

The map above shows how different the landscape was around 1.8 million years ago, with an emerged area spanning not only the Indonesian islands but also a land bridge from Vietnam into Sundaland, separating the seas of China and Thailand. It also depicts in orange and purple, possible entry routes from the mainland Asian area to Sanigran in Indonesia.


The time spent walking


The point they studied is how long did the trek of these erectus people take. After all, there are remains in China and also in Georgia, at the Dmanisi site, around 1.9 to 2 million years old, and the Indonesian remains are just 100,000 years younger. Let's see what the authors say (my comments are underlined) and I highlight some relevant parts:


" How long did the journey take? While least-cost paths are 6,000 km long on average from mainland Asia to Java (Fig. 4a), the mean travelled distances are 50 times longer for Markovian walks (327 x 103km), regardless of the north entry point, and almost always in excess of 100 x 103 km. The corresponding time span depends on the migration speed. Estimates are available for more recent palaeolithic hominins, ranging from 1 to 10 km/yr [I will comment on this point further down]. At similar speeds, the least-cost paths convert into an optimal travel time of 0.6 to 6 kyr, which is thus the minimal time to cross Sundaland. Markovian walks imply much longer durations before hominins reached Java, between 25-40 kyr at fast moving rates, and 250-400 kyr at slow moving rates (Fig. 4b). These relatively long delays at average or slow moving rates are difficult to reconcile with the early arrival to Java ca. 1.8 Ma, following departure from Georgia or China only a few 100 kyr before. We suggest that because these characteristic travel times scale with the characteristic time scale of changes of the physical environment, external forcings impelled hominins to migrate and boosted their displacement.... We find that H. erectus migrated across Sundaland at remarkably fast rates (>10 km/yr) with respect to their prior journey across Eurasia, and to the displacement rates of other lineages of the genus Homo"


In other words, they estimate that the joureny could take between 25,000 and 400,000 years, to move from northern Thailand or Vietnam to Sanigran in Indonesia. And say that the erectus people walked faster than that because there were external forces pushing them forward (?).


They adopt a quicker pace to fit the timeline of not more than 100,000 years between the oldest Asian specimens in China and Georgia, and those found in Indonesia. So, the authors suggest a slow pace across Asia from Georgia to East Asia, and then a very quick entry into Indonesia.


The paper assumes a speed of 10 km per year for Homo erectus which is the speed at which the fastest "recent palaeolithic hominins" move at (see further up, where it places that speed at 1 to 10 km/y). In my opion, this is quick.


So, just taking straight lines as a course (this would assume the travelers knew in advance where they were going, which they didn't), the distance however from northern Thailand to Java is roughly 3,000 km (2,000 miles). Which they. Taking figure 4b in the paper, at 10 km per year this journey would have required between 7 and 62 ky, on average 32 ky. If these people would have moved at the slower limit found in more recent palaeolithic hominins, they would have required 320 ky to do so (70 to 620 ky).


Interestingly, the modern humans of the Out Of Africa wave are said to have trekked from the Sinai (starting 60 kya) to Beringia in only 40,000 years. That is a much longer distance (10,700 km - 6,700 mi) than the one into Sunda from northern Thailand. So, moving at the pace of the erectus that peopled Sunda, to cover this distance that is 3 times longer, it would have taken almost 100 ky on average. So if they set out 60 kya, they still haven't arrived in America! And walking at the lowere speed limit, it would have taken 1 million years.


Something is wrong in the dispersal speeds.


The paper seems to understand this implication, because it ends with an interesting conclusion: "At a more general scale, our TCN ages obtained for the first appearance datum of H. erectus in Sangiran advocate for an early peopling of Sundaland by H. erectus, contemporary with their Chinese and Georgian counterparts, whose endocranial capacity was much smaller than specimens from Sangiran. These results reignite the long-standing controversy over the origin and dispersal pathways of archaic humans and invites a reexamination of the out-of-Africa paradigm, which provides a global roadmap for the dispersal of the genus Homo, but which one-way direction may be questioned."


Directionality suggests Asia-To-Africa migrations, and the smaller-brain sizes of contemporary erectus in China and Georgia vs. Indonesia requires some explanation. Why would the more advanced erectus be those most distant from Africa, in Sangiran?



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Saturday, July 4, 2026

The common ancestor of Denisovans, Neanderthals and Humans


A paper published in February of this year, in Nature, by Hublin et al., analyzed the shape of jaws and teeth of several fossils collected in Morocco and compared them to those of Neanderthals, the older Homo antecessor, modern humans, and Homo erectus to try to unravel how our Homo sapiens species evolved in North Africa, the site where the oldest human remains have been found (300,000 years old).


The paper mentions that the common ancestor of modern humans, Neanderthals, and Asian Denisovans lived between 765 and 550 thousand years ago (ka), but where it lived is still a mystery. Some studies have proposed that the Homo antecessor, whose remains were uncovered in the Gran Dolina site, Atapuerca, Spain (950-770 ka) is the candidate for this last common ancestor of the later homo genus.


The Homo antecessor fossils are named in the paper as TD6, after the layer where they were found. If antecessor is the ancestor, it means we had a European origin. However, all of the oldest Homo sapiens remains older than 90,000 years, have been found either in North Africa or in the Levant, taken by the proponents of the Out of Africa (OOA) theory as an indication of an African origin for modern humans, and Africa as the site of the last common ancestor of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and us.


This paper compares remains found in a site close to Casablanca, Morocco, in northwest Africa, known as the Grotte à Hominidés (which we name here as ThI-GH). These remains are in the right time period to be ancestral to all groups (773 ka).


The conclusions of Hublin et al., are quoted below, I have highlighted some relevant parts:


"In North Africa, the ThI-GH hominins are the only specimens unearthed within an indisputable stratigraphic context and securely dated to the MBT at a nominal age of 773 ±4 ka. These hominins cannot be directly compared with later specimens, such as the Kabwe or Bodo skulls, which have been tentatively assigned to H. heidelbergensis. Not only do these specimens differ substantially in age, but they also lack preservation of comparable anatomical parts. Our analysis suggests that the ThI-GH hominins probably belong to an evolved form of H. erectus sensu lato in North Africa, much as H. antecessor does in Europe. However, the ThI-GH hominins offer an interesting contrast to both the Spanish fossils and the considerably older fossils from Tighennif (Algeria), which are likely to date to at least 1,000 ka. The fossil mandibles from Tighennif appear more primitive, larger and more robust than both the European H. antecessor and the northwest African ThI-GH fossils. The Spanish and Moroccan fossils share several features in their teeth and mandibles. Both groups display a combination of archaic and derived features reminiscent of later hominins (Supplementary Table 25). These similarities revive the question of possible exchanges across the Strait of Gibraltar during the EP. Nevertheless, the ThI-GH hominins are different from the TD6 hominins. The pattern of these differences suggests that regional differentiation between Europe and North Africa was already present by the late EP. Apparent Neanderthal-like features on the larger ThI-GH-1 mandible could reflect primitive retentions, allometric effects or convergent evolution but, when more phylogenetically informative dental characters are considered, the Spanish specimens appear more derived towards the Neanderthal morphology that later emerged in western Eurasia.
The origin of H. sapiens, and the precise timing of the divergence of its ancestral populations from the Neanderthal–Denisovan clade, remain subjects of debate. Anatomical evidence has at times been used to argue for a split predating 800 ka and even for an alternative Asian ancestry of our species. In this context, the Maghreb fossils are key to understanding the diversification of MP hominins. The morphology of the ThI-GH hominins places them close to the split between the African and Eurasian lineages. Our findings not only align with the phylogenetic structure inferred from palaeogenetic data but also highlight the Maghreb as a pivotal region for understanding the emergence of our species, reinforcing the case for an African rather than a Eurasian ancestry of H. sapiens
."


Comments


The closing phrase about an African origin of modern humans is expected as the authors don't want to go against the established dogma. However, the point about intercontinental exchange via Gibraltar during the Early Pleistocene is extremely interesting. It is very likely that our common ancestor, even H. erectus had the ability to cross such a narrow body of water in boats. The similarity of Atapuerca specimens with Neanderthals is also relevant, as Neanderthals are Eurasian, not African. The differences between H. heidelbergensis specimens within Africa and the Moroccan fossils hints at a separate stem of hominins in North Africa vs. central and southern Africa. Furthermore, the authors suggest that it was Homo erectuswho evolved into the Moroccan specimens, and that the erectus present in Africa were more primitive and robust than the European lineage.


Taken together, this suggests, in my opinion, That the erectus line, after evolving in Eurasia, moved into Northern Africa via Gibraltar, and had already settled in Western Europe, and evolved in this region (Spain-Morocco) into the common ancestor of Neanderthals-Denisovans and Humans, in Europe.


How can we account for the absence of Denisovans and Neanderthals in Africa? But, assume that modern humans originated there? This is a serious flaw in the African origin theory.


An answer to those questions is that the "common ancestor" migrated east into Eurasia and the Levant, diverging there into Neanderthals and Denisovans who, respectively, colonized Western and Eastern Eurasia. From this common root, modern humans split, entering Africa via Sinai or maybe Bab el Mandeb, while spreading eastwards across Eurasia.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, June 12, 2026

Bolas - stone balls around the World: Oldowan / Acheulean tools?


In my previous post I mentioned the stone balls, or "bolas" found in Miramar, Argentina, originally claimed to be 2 or even 3 million years old in the early 1900s, they are now believed to be either a hoax, or later, Paleoindian tools. However, genuinre and uncontroversial stone balls h ave been unearthed in the Old World, dating back to Oldowan and Acheulean times, meaning that they are around 1.5 million years old, and were made by Homo erectus or even older ancestral hominins.


Red Crag Stone from Bramford, England


Pictured below, (Red Crag stone. Source) this stone is not a sphere, instead it has an elongated shape, and unlike the other Old World finds, it has been quite controversial.


Red Crag sling stone

J. Reid Moir wrote an article about the stone three years after it was found by one of his assistants, by the name of John Baxter. It came from Pliocene sediments at Red Crag, Bramford, a site near Ipswich, in England, UK. The 1929 article titled "A Remarkable Object from Beneath the Red Crag". It was roughly egg shaped. Henri Breuil, who was a witness of the discovery wrote: "While I was staying in Ipswich with my friend J. Reid Moir, we were examining together a drawer of objects from the base of the Red Crag at Bramford, when J. Reid Moir showed me a singular egg-shaped object, which had been picked up on account of its unusual shape. Even at first sight it appeared to me to present artificial striations and facets, and I therefore examined it more closely with a mineralogist's lens. This examination showed me that." Rather than a South American bola, this ovoid was thought to be a sling stone like the ones used in "New Caledonia". TWhe Pleistocene to Eocene sediments at Bramfored are over 2 million years old.


However, Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, 2011 warns that even thouth the age is correct, the setting may be wront: "the Red Crag deposits date from the Gelasian chrono-stratigraphic phase, 2,588,000 to 1,806,000 years ago during the earliest phase of the Lower Pleistocene, when this part of Britain was under a shallow sea, and it seems most likely that the “sling-stone” is a simple case of misidentification, its natural grooves being mistaken for human manufacture by an expert who was overtaken by his colleague’s enthusiasm for finding objects in the deposit in question."


Below is a Melanesian Sling stone , the resemblance is striking, yet this one is evidently manmade, and polished.


New Caledonia sling stone
Sling stone from New Caledonia. Source

Olduvai stone balls, Tanzania


The Museum of Stone Tools shows the following image captioned as a quartzite spheroid from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, age: Early Pleistocene Oldowan-Acheulean 0.4 to 1.9 million years ago.


Olduvai spheroid

Another example can be seen here, online, at the British Museum, which in its description cautions, that although Louis Leakey suggested that these rounded stones were used as bolas, like the throwing stones from the Pampas, "experiments have shown that such pieces can be produced by repeatedly using the same quartz pebble as a knapping hammer"


The Oldowan tools, are crude, like struck pebbles, and believed to be the work of Homo habilis, manufacturing spheroidal stone balls seems to be beyond their cognitive abilities. Could primitive hominins like them fashion sinew cords or treat leather adequatly to be able to fasten them to stone balls like the bolas or boleadoras of the Pampas?


An excellent summary of the Olduvai spheroids can be found in Ignacio de la Torre & Rafael Mora, 2010, which I summarize below:


Clark reported them in 1955, and their deliberate manufacture by flaking and battering to shape the speroids. He suggested they were used as missiles, and also as hammerstones for stone tool manufacture and to crack nuts open.


Willoughby proposed in 1987 that they were the result of flaking that began with the typical choppers, and that ended up as speroids, or, altermtively that they were used as hammers, an unintentional outcome of their use was the shaping of rounded spheroids.


Texier and Roche (1995) consider them as deliberate objects that arose from a method of knapping flakes. A core is battered, through controlled reduction to produce flakes and this results in a polyhedron, or a spheroid.


Java stone balls made by H. erectus


Leaving Africa, and the Oldowan, stone balls were found in sites associated to Homo erectus, who has been in Eurasia for around two million years. Weidenreich, 1943 describes in Indonesia at the Homo erectus site in Solo: "The most interesting specimen illustrated by Oppenoorth is a stone ball from Ngandong. Similar stone balls have been found at several places in our excavations in the Solo Valley. They are made of andesite, are perfectly round, and are never polished. According to Oppenoorth, their diameters range from 67 to 92 mm... [2.6 - 3.6 in], and some may be even a little larger. They closely resemble primitive stone cannon balls as used in Java in medieval times for the old bronze cannons. They occur so regularly in the layers that they might actually represent "implements" used by Solo men." He attributes them a Mousterian, and therefore Neanderthal similarity, citing similar stones found in La Quina, France, Techik Tach, Russia. Adding that "Mousterio-Levalloisian of Florisbad, South Africa, Dreyer and Lyle mention "dozens of round balls" about 3 inches in diameter made mostly of dolorite, and also a few of blue shales." Weidenreich mentions that the oldest balls were Acheulean, from Kenya, reported by Leakey, who found them "in many cases in groups of three strongly indicating the use of the bolas, still used as a hunting weapon in South." Weidenreich suggests that although their purpose is unknown they were either sling stones or bolas.


According to Bartstra (1983), cited in van Heteren & de Vos, 2012 describes tools and remains found at the Ngebung site in Java, belonging to H. erectus there are three levels, the deepest (lowest) has tools that are absent in the upper ones of Upper Pleistocene age: "elongated choppers, spherical balls (so called sling stones or bolas) and crude axes, all made of andesite. The larger stone tools, like the bolas are considered to be Upper Pleistocene/Lower Holocene of age." No explanation given for assigning a more recent age to the bolas.


Acheulean bolas in Israel


My own research into these primitive bolas has revealed other sources, for instance, outside of Africa, made by Homo erectus in Ubeidiya, Israel, with an age of 1.4 million yearws, as reported by Muller et al., 2023 with a clear spherical shape. The paper suggests that they were deliberately fashioned that way, to resemble speheres and its title echoes that suggestion: The limestone spheroids of ‘Ubeidiya: intentionalimposition of symmetric geometry by early hominins? Some of the stone balls studied in this paper are pictured below:


Ubeidiya spheroidal stones

This article points out that their shape has bewildered archaeologists, as they can't understand what was their use. Furthermore, they have been used for millions of years, starting with the crude Oldowan stones industry, and into the Acheulean, and Mousterian, their use in Southern South America persisted until the late 1800s. Their widespread geographic dispersion, from Africa, to Asia, Europe, and America is notable.


There are two schools of though about these balls: (1) that they were the byproduct of a flake producing technique that left spheroids as waste, a totally unintentional production of stone balls. (2) That the hominins that made them selected a nodule and then deliberately fashioned it into a polyhedron, and gradually into a spheroid or bola. The balls found in Israel, according to the authors , "are a complex formal technology that represent a manifestation of the complex cognitive and skilful capacities of Early Acheulean hominins. If similar intentional shaping can be demonstrated on Oldowan spheroids, this would likely represent the earliest evidence of hominins imposing a desired symmetrical geometry on their tools." In other words, Homo habilis and Homo erectus were much smarter than we imagined.


Ancient or Modern?


S. J. de Laet mentions stone balls in the History of Humanity Volume I (see p. 454) in line with what I have mentioned further, up, but he questions their antiquity in Indonesia, suggesting a modern Homo sapiens origin:


"round stone balls (resembling small stone cannon-balls) that are allegedly found in terrace sediments along the Solo. They are made of andesite, are not polished and measure on average 10 cm in diameter. They are associated with Homo soloensis(on account of their assumed stratigraphical position), and they are regarded as a primitive hunting weapon, which is why these stone balls are oftenreferred to as bolas or sling-stones. Von Koenigswald even saw in them evidence for theNeanderthal character of the Solo hominids: similar stone balls do occur at such famousNeanderthal sites as La Quina (France) and Teshik-Tash (Uzbekistan) (von Koenigswald,1951). In Sangiran too these stone balls are found (and they are displayed in the local museum); but around the hill of Ngebung it can be demonstrated that they certainly do not lie buried in high-terrace sediments. In Ngebung the stone balls can be associated with young, post-Pleistocene alluvial deposits (Bartstra, 1985). The question therefore ariseswhether the stone balls found along the Solo do not in fact originate also from recent sediments, and reflect the activities of Holocene hunters rather than those of ancient Homo soloensis"


Spheres with symbolic purposes

There are some intriguing rounded stone ballls that were discovered in a site known as El Guettar, in Tunisia, first explored by Gruet in 1954) (S. J. de Laet, see p. 352). The stones were found, accomodated in the shape of a cairn!


"El Guettar did yield the best evidence for symbolic behaviour in the constructed heap of stone balls (Gruet,1954, pp. 67–77). The site had some 7 m [23 ft.]of Middle Palaeolithic deposits around a spring, and the stone heap was found near the base of the sequence, built on a flat surface by the edge of the spring pool. The heap was conical, with a basal diameter of about 130 cm [4.2 ft] and a height of about 70 cm [2.3 ft.], and was built of about sixty balls, almost all of them oflimestone, which were graded from large (18 cm in diameter [3.1 in]), rather roughly shaped one sat the base to small (4.5 cm in diameter [1.8 in]), perfectly shaped ones at the top. The interior of the cone was filled with a mass of bones and flaked stone artefacts (approximately 2,000 ofthe latter, including a typical tanged point). The bones and artefacts seemed to have been simply gathered up from the surrounding surface (they do not differ overall from those found elsewhere in the excavation), but some care was taken to reserve the finest artefacts for the upper part of the fill. At the base of the interior of the heap were two thin plaques of a non-local limestone.The detectable method and consistency in the construction of the heap suggest that it was built on one occasion, rather than over a period of time. That the heap stood undisturbed thereafter until it became buried indicates that it was not just a convenient way of storing stone balls. The excavator believed that it represented an offering to the genius loci of the spring. Practical explanations have not been forthcoming and we too are brought to conclude that its purpose must have been symbolic."


I must add that Gruet believed the site was of people with a Mousterian culture, i.e. Neanderthals, however other scholars, like Clark, consider it to be later, belonging to the more recent Aterian culture, of modern Homo sapiens and about 40 ky old.


Below is a picture of the stone cairn at El Guettar


Guettar stone spheroids in a cairn
Cairn found at Guettar. Source

Hammers?


A recent article by Assaf, Preysler, and Bruner, 2023 analyzes the shape, size and flaking used to fashion them and concludes that "Based on the current data available, we link the development of SSBs [shaped stone balls] with an increased consumption and extraction of fat of large-medium sized herbivores in the Lower Paleolithic period. Indeed, SSBs may also have been used as percussion tools for processing vegetal material, perhaps similarly to handaxes, which were primarily used for butchering, but were occasionally used for woodworking. However, current functional and experimental data associate these items with marrow extraction activities, as well as some contextual data linking these items with faunal remains. We thus argue that these are designated tools shaped in a complex procedure—a technological solution invented during the LP in order to respond to the growing need for fat consumption."


Closing Comments


The use of stone balls is ancient, dating back to the first stone tools used by our ancestors in Africa. They survived across species (H. erectus, Neanderthals, and modern humans), and vast distances. They ended up in America where they were used for tens of thousands of years in the Pampas and Patagonia.


Were they introduced into the New World by H. erectus? and if so, is their great antiquity (as suggested by Ameghino at Miramar) could be an indication of that origin.


Finally, the Patagonian myth of Tachwull, them proto-human maker of bolas may be a memory of the presence of erectus in America.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Saturday, May 30, 2026

Homo erectus


Although Charles Darwin had speculated in his work The Descent of Man, published in 1871 (p.240), that "It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee ; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere." So, Darwin was the first to propose an Out of Africa origin for mankind.


But Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a German scientist who quickly accepted and promoted Darwin' theory of Evolution through natural selection thought otherwisw.


Haeckel coined the term pithecanthropus (ape-men) and believed that humans had evolved from Catarhini, or Narrow-nosed Apes in South East Asia. Current woke feelings condemn his posture on eugenics, and racial inferiority of some human populations. His writings acceptable in his days would now be considered racist, and derogatory towards dark-skinned peoples, but he was a man of his time when such points of view were acceptable, so we can't apply our modern standards to judge him with hindsight.


Haeckel described a human phylogenetic tree, and addressed practical aspects of human evolution. Even before Darwin's "Descent of Man", he had conjectured about the birthplace of humanity. In 1868 he wrote (see p. 436 Vol. 2 in The History of Creation: "Man, we may feel certain, is descended from Catarhini, or narrow-nosed apes... Of the five now existing continents, neither Australia, nor America, nor Europe can have been this primaeval home, or the so-called "Paradise," the "cradle of the human race." Most circumstances indicate Southern Asia as the locality in question."


Homo erectus discovery


Heaeckel's work inspired a Dutch physician, Eugène Dubois, to explore that region in search of the "missing link" ancestor of the human species. He succeeded, and he discovered the first pithecanthropus, now known as Homo erectus in 1891, at Trinil, a site located on the banks of the Solo River, in Java, in what is now Indonesia. They were ancient, and validated Haeckel's hypothesis. Now we know they are ancient, between 700,000 and 1,500,000 years old.


Solo Man discovery
1932 Newspaper article about Solo Man

The Trinil "Java Man" or "pithecantropus erectus" (upright ape man) was the oldest hominin discovered at that time, far older than the European Neanderthals. More erectus remains were discovered near Beijing, China, starting in 1921, at the Zhoukoudian site. These remains were named "Peking Man" (Sinanthropus pekinensis).


Further excavations were conducted at Trinil in the early 1900s but didn't yield any remains.


But, less than one hundred years ago, the situation changed. A member of that expedition, Willem Frederik Oppenoorth had persisted in his quest, and had become the head of the Java Mapping Progran in 1930. He also secured funding to conduct further archaeological research in the region, searching for erectus. Noting the Trinil site's location, Oppenoorth surveyed the Solo River east of it, and struck gold when one of his teams led by Ter Haar discovered some animal fossils on August 27, 1931 close to the village of Ngandong.


They dug at the spot, located 20 m (33 ft) above the level of Solo River and found that it was a rich deposit containing animal fossils entombed by a flood that laid volcanic ashes along a now abandoned river bed.


For those keen on more details, I suggest reading Huffman et al., 2010, who describe the site, its exploration, layout, and remains in great detail.


On September 15, 1931 the dig unearthed hominin remains, they had discovered what we now classify as Homo erectus. Oppenoorth published the findings in 1932 (Solo Man a new fossil skull. Scientific American Sept. 1932, 154–155). He soon realized that the "Solo Man" belonged to the same group as Java Man and Peking Man. Oppenoorth believed that the Indonesian Java Man was the ancestor of the less primitive, and more recent Solo Man, and that both were part of the branch of mankind that led to the Australian Aboriginal people. On the other branch was the Peking Man from northern China,who was the root of the tree that led to Neanderthals in Europe. Man had its roots in Asia. However, he also recognized that these Asian hominins were similar to the African Homo rhodesiensis.


Dubois, who had discovered the Java Man, classed them as human beings, naming them Homo sapiens soloensis (Source).


A few years later, in 1939, von Koenigswald and Weidenreich recognized that Java Man and Peking Man were "related to each other in the same way as two different races of present mankind. Now we know that they were erectus, and so was the Solo Man.

How old was the Solo Man?


At first these remains were believed to be very old, closer to the age of the Java Man, but over the years we learned that they are much more recent, and they may have even co-existed with Modern humans.


Specimens from the Solo River site ad Ngandong were studied by Yokoyama et al. (2008), who calculated an age of 40,000 to 70,000 years for them, which would place them close the the date of arrival of modern humans to the region. Did they overlap with Homo sapiens? Maybe not.


The latest dating of the Solo Man was preformed by Rizal et al., 2020. This study revealed that the terrace above the Solor River in Ngandong was formed between 92,000 and 140,000 years ago and they estimated "ages of 117 to 108 thousand years (kyr) for the H. erectus bone bed, which accumulated during flood conditions. These results negate the extreme ages that have been proposed for the site and solidify Ngandong as the last known occurrence of this long-lived species." This date is earlier than the currently accepted date for the second, and final, Out of Africa migration which is believed to have taken place ~60 kyr ago.


It is possible that modern humans left Afria earlier, or that the first Out of Africa around 120 kya advanced east much further than currently believed and reached Indonesia, instead of the Levant. In either case, Solo Man and Modern humans could have met.


Alternatively, these erectus could have survived and thrived in the region until the arrival of modern humans. We do know that Denisovans lived in this region before modern humans arrived. We ignore if erectus and Denisovans admixing here.


Currently, there is no direct genetic evidence of direct super-archaic admixture in the people who now live in this region (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, or Australia), see Hudjashov et al., 2007. Perhaps further studies will clarify the matter. But, we recently learned that erectus and Denisovans admixed somewhere in East Asia, and that some of the erectus genes ended up in modern humans via Denisovan-Human interactions.


Some open questions remain: did Solo Man evolve from the original Java Man? or were they closely related "sister lineages" evolving in the same region, both being subspecies of H. erectus?


Interestingly H. erectus has been in Asia for over two million years, which is older than the oldest African erectus fossils. Furthermore, erectus remains were found in Africa far more recently than those discovered in Asia; starting in 1970 Richard Leaky discovered fossils in Koobi Fora, near Lake Turkana, in Kenya, which are 1.75 million years old. In 1984 the erectus Turkana Boy was found there too. It is possible that H. erectus evolved in Asia and then migrated to Africa.


As mentioned in my recent post, they lived in Siberia between 400,000 and 800,000 years ago, showing that they were equally well adapted to the tropical climate of Indonesia and the icy Siberian forests. These adaptable and intelligent hominins were capable of colonizing Africa from Asia, and also, moving on, and reaching America.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

2011 Neanderthal sightings in Kemerovo Siberia


Iwas watching a program on History channel that offered different explanations for the Himalayan Yeti (abominable snowman) such as its a bear, its a relict Gigantopithecus ape, its the footprints of deformed human feet, its imagination (Brocken spectre, pareidolia, or a shadow person), and finally, it mentioned some sightings of extant Neanderthals reported in the Kemerovo region of Siberia around 2011-2012, and investigated by Russian scholars. Which is indeed a new alternative,in line with what I have written about on the ancient Patagonian myths of "wild men" (sightings of surviving ancestral hominins in America). For these reasons, I decided to post about it, and look into these sightings and the scientists and organizations that are studying them.


The Kemerovo Sightings


An article published online in 2011 mentions a spike in sightings of the abominable snowman in Siberia in the Kemerovo region noting that it is 3,000 miles (4,800 km) from Moscow, and neighboring Altai (a place where Denisovans and Neanderthals lived for several hundreds of thousands of years, and overlapped there, admixing).


The article mentions an "International Centre of Hominology in Tashtagol, and cites its head, Igor Burtsev (his name was also cited in the History Channel documentary). Burtsey stated that: "When Homo sapiens started populating the world, it viciously exterminated its closest relative in the hominid family, Homo neanderthalensis. Some of the Neanderthals, however, may have survived to this day in some mountainous wooded habitats that are more or less off limits to their arch foes."


Kemerovo is indeed close to Altai (see Google map), roughly 580 km (360 mi) north of the famous Denisova Cave.


Another article describes the sightings: one took place near a village called Misky (see map), where a fisherman called Vitaly Vershinin, who was sailing up the river, saw what he believed to be two people with a bear-like appearance drinking by a river, but when they saw him, they stood up, and walked away, so did he. The man, took a TV crew to the spot, and added that ""they just rushed away, all in fur, walking on two legs, making way through the bushes with two other limbs, straight up the hill, right there."


Some "yeti" hairs were found by an expedition in Kemerovo conducted by Burtsev the previous year (2011), who said that despite the violent interactions between modern humans and Neanderthals "Some of the Neanderthals, however, may have survived to this day in some mountainous wooded habitats that are more or less off limits to their arch foes. No clothing on them, no tools in hands and no fire in the household. Only round-the-clock watchfulness for a Homo sapiens around." I disagree. Neanderthals were sophisticated people, they knew how to make specializeds stone tools, dominated the art of firemaking, and fashioned clothes to protect themselves from the harsh Ice Age climate during the period they thrived in Eurasia, for several hundreds of thousands of years.


I posted about these sightings in 2011 and was looking forward to the outcome of the DNA tests of the tufts of hair recovered in Kemerovo. But these were never disclosed.


The article continues, and also mentions that "Sightings of the creatures in the region have increased three-fold over the past 20 years, prompting scientists at Moscow's Darwin Museum to speculate that there may be a small population of these creatures." (Neanderthals).


Another sighting took place in January 2013 (Source) when a state inspector spotted a yeti in the Shorsky National Park in the Tashtagolski district (see map). A local official, Sergei Adlyakov, said that it didn't look like a bear and vanished in the forest snapping branches off the bushes as it fled.


The final report of an encounter with yetis took plaxe in Kuzbass, when men on a boat navigating the Mras-Su River (see map) spotted, on a rock above the river, "some tall animals looking like people. Our binoculars were broken and did not let us see them sharply. We waved at the animals but they did not respond, then quickly ran back into the forest, walking on two legs."


A 2014 post quotes Igor Burtsev as affirming that "there is an active population of about 30 of the creatures living in the Kemerovo (the region of Mount Shoria) in Siberia to this day"


The "Yeti Expert"


Who is Igor Burtsev? and what is the International Centre of Hominology?


Burtsev is co-author of a research paper about a wild woman that was captured in a forest in the Caucasus (Margaryan A, Sinding MS, Carø C, Yamshchikov V, Burtsev I, Gilbert MTP. The genomic origin of Zana of Abkhazia. Adv Genet (Hoboken). 2021 Jun 14;2(2):e10051. doi: 10.1002/ggn2.10051. PMID: 36618122; PMCID: PMC9744565), in the paper he is credited as affiliated to the " International Center of Hominology, State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia." This museum is a serious institution (website).


The paper cites some refrences authored by Burtsev:


  • Bourtsev I. A Skeleton Still Buried and a Skull Unearthed: the Story of Zana. In the Footsteps of the Russian Snowman, Crypto‐Logos Publishers 1996;46–52.
  • Burtsev I. Relict Hominoid Research Seminar. 1987.
  • Burtsev I. Moscow Naturalists' Society. 1987.

Burtsev has appeared in some episodes of documentaries about cryptozoology (Cascade Bigfoot Blood Mystery, 2022, and in The Proof is Out There, 2025: Bigfoot Car Chase, Airport UFO, and High School Football Ghost, S.5;Ep. 12 and Siberian Yeti, Amazonian Alien Researcher, and Japanese Wolves Resurrected, S.5; Ep. 14.


A Russian language article states that Burtsev holds a History pHD, but then quotes him as supporting the weird theory put forward by Dr. Melba Ketchum (see my 2012 post about this quack story), who analyzed the DNA of North American samples of Bigfoots. Burtsev says that " It's been absolutely certain that the creature wasn't related to Neanderthals or Denisovans... Besides, 15,000 years ago, representatives of these human species had already disappeared from the face of the Earth—they went extinct... I don't rule out a hypothesis that might seem completely fantastic. Aliens who visited Earth could have been involved in the hybridization. Very unusual DNA was found in the samples analyzed in the United States." When UFOs and aliens are combined in a story involving Bigfoot, it becomes pseudoscience, and therefore placed in the same category as astrology, flat earth, creation science, Bermuda Triangle and similar nonsense.


I found his bio on the ICH website (more on ICH further down):


"Igor Burtsev, born in 1940, candidate of historical sciences, publisher, president of the Cryptosphere Fund for furthering scientific searches and explorations, director of the International Center of Hominology. Engaged in this investigation since 1965, participant and leader of many searching expeditions – in the North Caucasus (Kabardino-Balkaria, 1965), Azerbajan (Talysh, 1970-75), Abkhazia (1971, 1975, 1978, 2004, 2008), Mongolia (1976), Pamiro-Alai (1979-82), the Murmansk Region (Lovozero Lake, 1990); participant of investigations near St. Petersburg (1989, 2009) and in the Kirov Region (2002-2007), in the Novgorod, Tver’, Tula, Krasnodar regions (2009), in the Mountaneus Shoria, Siberia (2009-10). Since 1971 devoted several years to the study of the Patterson film. Author and co-author of many publications in the popular scientific magazines and in newspapers. In the fall of 2004 spent five weeks in Tennessee, USA, investigating reports of bigfoots visiting the Carter Farm. In 2006 visited the New York University concerning the analysis of the skulls excavated in Abkhasia."

International Centre of Hominology or ICH

Burtsev in collaboration with Bayanov (more on him below) created the International Center of Hominology in Moscow in 2003 (Source). Both are pictured below.


two men

The ICH is listed in the Union of International Associations (link here) as a civil entity.


The UIA gives a website address for the ICH: https://hominology.narod.ru/eng.htm which is offline, however, the website can be seen in archive.org (a great tool, it has captured and saved one trillion web pages!), below is a screenshot of ICH's website as it looked back in 2013, when it was active.


ICH website in 2013, archive.org, Internet Archive Wayback Machine

ICH has a facebook page https://www.facebook.com/hominology which is currently active.


More on the Eurasian Hominoids


An interesting thesis exploring Soviet science and Darwinism touches the subject of hominoids and the Yeti. It mentions that these scholars believed that the Yeti was a missing link, a relict hominoid, but which one, was an open discussion. somt thought it was related to apes, like the gigantopithcus, while others like Boris Porshnev supported a hominin like the Homo erectus or a Neanderthal, and Petr Smolin thought it was an australopitecine. After deep studies of physical evidence, Porshnev "concluded that Yeti and Neanderthal shared too many traits to be incidental" yet the Yeti was an animal, it degenerated from the intelligent Neanderthal in a backward evolution. This seems to explain why Burtsev suggests that the Neanderthals in Siberia don't make stone tools, don't wear clothes or don't light fires, they are a reversion to an animal form, yet shaped like humans.


In my search about these Siberian sightings, I also came across the work of Dimitri Bayanov, who is the Science Director in the International Centre of Hominology. He is credited with coining the term "hominology" as the study of "hairy bipeds" like bigfoot, almasty, and yeti. For over 30 years he has headed the Smolin seminar focused on hominology at the Darwin Museum in Moscow.


In his essay, Bayanov Historical Evidence for the Existence of Relict Hominoids (The Relict Hominoid Inquiry 1:23-50, 2012) where he addresses the issue of which hominin has survived and embodies the current hominoids sighted in Eurasia:


"One final relevant question: How to correlate relict hominoids with the fossil record of paleoanthropology? According to Krantz (1980), Neanderthals had more traits in common with Homo erectus than with Homo sapiens, so that they “could all be classed with erectus.” He also wrote: “Homo erectus existed for over a million years with relatively little change – a kind of evolutionary plateau – and then was transformed rather quickly into Homo sapiens” (Krantz, 1980). Could it be that today’s wild bipedal homins are relicts of that evolutionary “standstill,” which lasted long enough for them to penetrate and settle the Old World before the advent of Homo sapiens? Adapting to local environments, these pre-sapiens must have more or less departed in their physique from the fossil erectus-grade forms presently known to science. I therefore propose that homins reported in central Eurasia are relicts of the Homo erectus-Neanderthal stage of evolution."


Closing Comments


The idea that surviving Neanderthals, Denisovans, or even Homo erectus have inspired the stories of wild men, or similar hominoids is exciting. It is extremely unlikely yet possible that in the vast wilderness of the Siberian hinterland there are a handful of our ancestors still living in the stone age. The same could apply to South America, or North America. But we need serious science to sift facts from pseudoscientific rubbish (like alien hybrids and similar nonsense).



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

Karama site in Siberia: 500-800 ky old


Following yesterday's post on a site known a Diring Yuriakh in northeastern Siberia that is 400,000 years old, today's post will look at another ancient Siberian site known as Karama which is just 15 km (less than 10 miles) from the famous Denisova Cave in the Altai.


The map shows the main sites in the Altai region, the red arrows mark Karama, and Denisova Cave.


map showing Karama and Denisova sites Altai Russia

Non-sapiens humans lived there 400,000 - 800,000 years ago


archaic humans in Siberia 400 kya

According to an online article this region, at that time had a relatively benign climate, and a forest cover with animal resources that favored settling there. But these were not modern human beings (we appeared ~300,000 years ago), these people were possibly Denisovans, Neanderthals, or even their predecessors, H. heidelbergensis or Homo erectus who fashioned cobble tools similar to the primitive Oldowan lithic industry:


"The earliest evidence of penetration of the Paleolithic man into the Altai is the Karama site dating back 400–800 thousand years. In red-color deposits of the lower Pleistocene, some large-size pebbles were found with roughly chopped-off sharp edges used as primitive stone implements like side scrapers, choppers, and choppings, which constituted the pebble-tool industry typical of the early Paleolith epoch. In that age, the climate in the Anui Valley was mild and favorable for the life of the primitive man. The occurrence of such deciduous species as elm, hornbeam, linden, maple, and oak, exotic for the contemporary flora of the Altai, in the birch and pine forests of the region testify to it. Numerous and diverse fauna inhabited the rich vegetation of the forests. Small and medium-sized mammals such as badger, marmot, hare, etc., made a significant part of the diet of hunters of the time. As for large prey, primitive men used to make a living by gathering the remains of meals of such predators as hyenas, wolves, or bears."


Most of the literature on this site is in Russian language (thank God there is a Google translating tool!). The site was excavated by Anatoly P. Derevianko and published in 2001 and 2002 according to his colleague M. Shunkov, both from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.


These appear to be the first two publications on Karama, and they are cited in the literature, but I have not been able to find them:


Derevianko, A.P., M.V. Shunkov and V.A. Ulianov. 2001a. Novoe rannepaleoliticheskoe mestonakhozhdenie v Gornom Altae. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii i antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii. 7:115-19. (In Russian).


Derevianko, A.P. and M.V. Shunkov. 2002. Middle Paleolithic industries with foliate bifaces in Gorny Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1:16-42.


One paper, Early Paleolithic Site of Karama in Altai: Initial Research Results, Archaeology, ethnography and anthropology of Eurasia 3 (23) 2005, provides an dating, when it ncludes that "Taken together, the palynological study materials of the section, along with other analytical data, allow us to correlate the accumulation time of the deposits in the middle and lower strata of the section with the Early Neopleistocene, i.e., to determine their age in the range of 400,000-800,000 years."


The old date for this site is ratified by a presentation given by A. P. Derevianko, M. V. Shunkov, 2008: Early Paleolithic of Altai, see p. 127 in the abstracts listed which provides sediment dating for this Early Paleolithic site.


Karama Site
Original (Russian) caption: At the ancient Karama site in the Altai Mountains, primitive pebble tools were found in multilayered Pleistocene deposits. Photo by A. Postny (top) and S. Zelins. Source

An article about Derevyanko (who seems to be an authority on Denisovans and their migrations across Asia), includes the image shown above, which depicts: on the upper left side, the Karama site, the same image can be seen in Derevyanko and Shunkov's 2005 paper captioned Fig. 1. View of the Karama site in the Anuy Valley., the lower left stone tool is seen in Fig. 17 of that same paper as Fig. 17. "2 - beak-shaped tool", and the excavation (lower righgt) can be seen in the paper as Fig. 9, the excavation #2 at Karama -but full of diggers.


Cobble, Oldowan-like tools


Shunkov, 2005 (English) describes the stone tools as follows: "... Paleolithic artifacts, which have been attributed to the Lower Paleolithic pebble industry judging form the morphology of the finds. The assemblage of the products of primary reduction include pebbles showing signs of core preparation with plain striking platforms and negative scars of parallel detachments and short non-faceted spalls. The collection of typologically distinct tools includes longitudinal and transverse racloirs; denticulate and notch-denticulate tools fashioned on short spalls, and cutting tools of the chopper/chopping tool type with a convex flattened cutting edge and a trimmed massive back. Most pebble tools from Karama are characterized by archaic morphological features and a comparatively advanced technology of secondary treatment." So they are primitive (cobbles) yet their finishing is advanced.


The original dates for the site were much earlier 1.77 to 1.95 million years, but it was refined to a lower limit of 800,000 years (see Kuzmin, Y.V., Kazanskii, A.Y., 2015 in Debatable questions of Siberia settlement by early humans. Stratigr. Geol. Correl. 23, 114–118 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0869593815010074) who writes: "... Judging by the results of a preliminary study of the Zasukhino site in Trans-Baikal, early humans could have appeared in Siberia about 1 million years ago, but additional research is required in order to obtain reliable information..." Regarding Karama, he this paper considers that the site "corresponds to MIS 16–19", roughly 620,000 to 780,000 years ago.


Regarding the stone tools, this paper confirms the technology employed by the people at Karama and, again, its antiquity:


"Archaeological materials of Karama are represented by Early Paleolithic pebble industries. They are characterized by irregular and parallel flaking. The primary flaking products include core-like pebbles with smooth or roughly prepared striking platforms, as well as flakes with sub parallel dorsal patterns and prepared platforms. The tool set is dominated by longitudinal, diagonal and transverse side-scrapers (as a rule naturally-backed or negative-backed), followed by massive-base choppers with straight, convex, or concave working edge. Next in importance are notches, denticulates and beaked tools formed mainly by Clactonian notches. The rest of the inventory is constituted by large pebble tools with an intentionally shaped thorn-like projection, core-like endscrapers formed by steep or abrupt retouch, massive tools with wide-angle working part, knives on “citrus slices” with clear traces of utilization, flakes bearing intermittent retouch.
Thus the site of Karama contains a sequence of Early Paleolithic horizons occurring in clear stratigraphic conditions. They yielded an expressive pebble industry, which can tentatively be dated to the period of 600–800 kya. For the time being this is the oldest archaeological assemblage with reliable stratigraphic and palynological data known in Northern and Central Asia.
"


Karama tools
Original (Russian) caption: Fig. 6. Stone inventory from layer 7 in excavation 1 of Karama. 1, 3 - side scrapers; 2, 4 - backed tools.. Source

A similar content is found in another paper by Kuzmin and Kazansky, 2019 (Chronology of the Lower Palaeolithic Site of Karama (Gorny Altai): Facts and Problems, Stratum plus. 2019. No 1), whose abstract places it not older than 800 kya. It reads as follows:


"Factual information and its interpretation regarding the geological age of the Lower Palaeolithic site of Karama (Altai Mountains, Siberia) are considered. It is demonstrated that palynological data do not allow to date this site to earlier than ca. 800 kya; archaeological data are consistent with this estimate. The viewpoint of V. S. Zykin with coauthors, according to which the age of Karama is ca. 1.95—1.77 mya, finds no support in the light of the available geological and paleomagnetic evidence. The so-called “Karama suite” of the Upper Pliocene of Altai Mountains in reality does not exist. For the time being there are no reliable data indicating than the initial peopling of Siberia took place prior to ca. 1 mya."


Siberia to America?


This post and the previous one have shown the presence of humans in Northern Siberia long before the previously accepted dates. 500,000 to 800,000 years ago some humans (Denisovans? H. erectus? H. heidelbergensis? were thriving in this region, fashioning tools that were primitive (not the Acheulean tools of erectus, or Mousterian tools of Neanderthals). Again, it makes one wonder, why didn't they continue their journey across Siberia and reach America?


My next post will explore this interesting hypothesis.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Monday, May 18, 2026

Diring Yuriakh site: Ancient humans in Siberia ~400 kya


The Diring Yuriakh site in Central Siberia shows that some humans reached the area long ago, well before modern humans had evolved in Africa, and more or less contemporary with the Denisovan and Neanderthal split. This was at least one hundred thousand years before Homo sapiens appeared.


But Siberia was a harsh environment, and the tools don't resemble Neanderthal Mousterian tool technology, it is more "primitive". Who were these humans braving the cold Siberian winters 400,000 years ago?


ancient humans in Siberia

I found a very old (nearly 40 years old!) article in Science, Diring Yuriakh: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Central Siberia 🔒 by Forman, Pierson and Waters (1997) discussing the site and its archaic tools. (See it here too 🔓)


This paper mentions the accidental discovery of a site along the Lena River in Siberia, a spot known as Diring Yuriakh where stone tools were unearthed (see it in Google Maps). These were not natural (geofacts) stones, but man-made. The site was excavated by Mochanov, 1992 🔒, who believed they were very ancient, 1.8 to 3.2 million years old, which would place the makers of the tools found there in the Homo erectus or Homo habilis time period. Other researchers suggest a later date of 800,000 years (800 kya) to 1 million years, which would make them H. erectus or possibly the common ancestors of Denisovans and Neanderthals.


According to Richards, 1994, Y. A. Mochanov presented a paper in 1992 at the 45th Annual Northwest Anthropology Conference (The Earliest Palaeolithic of Northeastern Asia and the Problem of the Extratropical Cradle of Man) which gave thermoluminescence dating calculated by O.A. Kulikov of over 1.1 million years (My) for layer 6, 2.9 + 0.96 My for layer 5, and more than 1.8 My for layer 4. Richards recommends caution when considering those dates.


Unifacial choppers. From Fig. 3. in the article

The dates provided in the paper from 1997 (resulting from a 1993 samples obtained at the site), are a minimum of 260,000 years, and a maximum of around 370,000 years, on average, 300,000 years. Interestingly, Mochanov had previously reported other sites with similar artifacts in the same sedimentary layer, and hence, of the samey age, at 14 other sites along a 800 km (500 mi) section of the Lena River in Northeastern Siberia.


This site is very close to America, just 3,000 km west (1,880 miles) of Alaska.


How did these people survive in this bleak northern environment? The paper suggests that the people who lived here probably did so during a warm spell at the end of glacial period known as MIS 8 (Marine Isotope Stage 8) which spanned a period from 300 to 243 kya. Another option is the warmer interglacial stage 7 period (245-190 kya). But, even during the warmest summers, the climate would have been very cold, requiring the use of fire, warm clothing, and effective shelter strategies. This indicates that these people were well adapted to the harsh conditions of Siberia. How long they stayed here, or how much territory they coccupied is not known.


Simple Stone Tools


The image further up depicts some tools from this site, which look quite primitive. The paper reports finding over 4,000 artifacts, mostly cores and flakes. Around 500 of them are "unifacial pebble choppers core scrapers, and scraper planes. A few tools made from flakes are present in the assemblage."


Mochanov characterizes these tools as follows: "these tools more closely resemble those from Olduvai Gorge than from any other Early Pleistocene site, leading the author to ponder the possibility of a non-tropical origin for humanity." Indeed, the Olduvai tool industy is the most primitive one, and also the oldest. The Homo erectus later developed their Acheulean stone tool technology, an advance on the Oldowan one.


Now we know that the period suggested by the 1997 paper (260 to 370 kya) would have spanned the time that Denisovans were living in Eastern Asia together with Neanderthals on its western fringes. We don't have Denisovan toolkits for comparison, but the Mousterian tools of the Neanderthals were far more advanced than the Oldowan. This opens up the possibility that some well-adapted archaic hominin, probably even earlier than the erectus, or a group that opted for simple tools and not the Acheulean ones of the erectus, lived in the cold northern parts of eastern Siberia.


An archaeology blogger (NeilB, 1016) analyzed the data objectiely and concluded that "Verdict: Site inhabited ca. 300, 000 years ago. Likely candidates Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis.".


2024 Research places the age of Diring Yuriakh at 400 kya


More recently, a 2024 paper by John D. Jansen et al., (Redrawing early human dispersal patterns with cosmogenic nuclide, EGU24-4168, updated on 08 Mar 2024. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-4168 EGU General Assembly 2024) used cosmogenic dating to date several Paleolithic sites in Europe, and also the Diring Yuriakh site, where they found "an age of 417 &plusm; 82 ka, which is at least 300 kyr earlier than the previously documented earliest human presence north of 60 degrees. This timing overlaps with exceptional warmth across the High North during the ‘super-interglacial’ MIS 11c (426–396 ka), suggesting that warm climate intervals permitted human migration well beyond widely accepted territorial bounds."


Janssen immediately understood the significance of such an old date in such a northerly location. He immediately suggested that these people could have moved on eastwards and reached America. But this will be the subject of a future post.


My next post will look into another site around 500 to 800 ky old, with cobble-styled stone tools close to the famous Denisova Cave, the Karama Site on Anui River, in the Altai, and then we will explore the subject of an early peopling of America by archaic humans from Siberia 400,000 or even more years ago.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Thursday, May 14, 2026

Chinese study finds link between Denisovans and Homo erectus


A paper published yesterday in the prestigious journal Nature (Quiamei Fu, et al., 2026, Enamel proteins from six Homo erectus specimens across China, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10478-8) identified protein from the teeth of Homo erectus remains of ~400,000 years of age from 3 sites in China, and found that "all specimens from all three sites share two amino acid variants. Of these, A253G in AMBN is previously unknown and has not been identified in other human lineages, including H. erectus from Dmanisi (Georgia), Homo antecessor from Atapuerca (Spain), Denisovans, Neanderthals and modern humans. The other variant, AMBN(M273V), has previously been identified in Denisovans, and our evidence now indicates it may have been introduced through populations related to these Middle Pleistocene H. erectus. The regions in the Denisovan genome attributed to super-archaic introgression, some of which later passed to modern humans, are likely to have originated from H. erectus. Late Middle Pleistocene H. erectus may have coexisted with Denisovans in parts of East Asia, where these interactions are presumed to have occurred." A clear link between Denisovans and erectus!


This new variant does not appear in any other primate except these Homo erectus.


AMBN(M273V) from erectus to Denisovan to human!


Then, is the second protein now found in Homo erectus was originally detected in Denisovans.


This discovery suggest that it was passed on from erectus to Denisovans.

This variant known as AMBN(M273V), results from a mutation (single-nucleotide polymorphism or SNP), at rs564905233, where adenine switched to guanine: A→G. Surprisingly, this mutation is also found in humans, and is believed to have introgressed into them, from Denisovans. The paper mentions its frequency as follows: "... 21% in the Philippines, 1.17% in India, 0.71% in Papua New Guinea, and is absent from most other modern human populations." Interestingly Denisovans have admixed mainly with humans from the Southeastern Asia region, including Papua New Guinea and Sunda islands.


Previous studies (see my posts: here, here and here) suggested that Denisovans admixed with superarchaic ancestors, a group that split from ours over 1 million years ago. The authors point out that "genomic studies reveal that Denisovans received 0.5–8% gene flow from a hominin whose ancestors diverged more than 1 Ma from the common lineage ancestral to Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans, and about 15% of these ‘super-archaic’ DNA regions introgressed from Denisovans into Asian and Oceanian individuals. This situation is similar to what we observe with AMBN(M273V). Consequently, this variant is not exclusive to Denisovans but appears to have been introduced into them through a population linked to Middle Pleistocene H. erectus from Zhoukoudian, Hexian, and Sunjiadong."


So the Homo erectus in China had sex with Denisovans and passed on alleles that eventually ended up in South East Asians and Oceanians! Below is Fig. 4 in this paper, captioned: " A possible model of gene flow related to AMBN(M273V) among H. erectus associated with the populations of Zhoukoudian, Hexian and Sunjiadong, Denisovans and modern humans."


h erectus admix in Denisovans and humans

The paper also clarified the status of two specimens from Hexian, which carry the new AMBN(A253G) mutation found in Homo erectus but absent in Denisovans like (Denisova 3, Penghu 1, and Harbin) this suggests that the Hexian remains belong to the H. erectus clade.


It would be interesting to find if the variant shared by erectus with humans via the Denisovans is found in other groups beyond SE Asia and PNG. For instance, in America, and in ancient human remains. However, the paper states that it is "absent" in most other human populations.


In coming posts, I will address the ancient sites of 400 to 800 ky of age, found in Siberia, which could have been the home of pre-Denisovan people, even Homo erectus, who, as we will see, may have advanced northeast, across Beringia and into America at that early date.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 
Hits since Sept. 2009:
Copyright © 2009-2025 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 - https://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/