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 oldowan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oldowan. Show all posts

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, June 6, 2026

Eoliths: Siberia. 1.5 - 2.5 million year old stone tools


Continuing with my series on primitive paleolithic tools, ones that resemble Oldowan cobble pebbles, following yesterday's post on the 100 ky Texas Street, San Diego, California site excavated by George Carter (1940s-1970s), I will go back to Siberia.


Recently I posted about two sites there, Diring Yuirakh and Karama, today I will mention another one, on Ulalinka River dated to over 1.5 million years ago.


Ulalinka River site


Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, in their 1993 work Hidden History of the Human Race mention the Ulalinka River site as follows: "In 1961, hundreds of crude pebble tools were found near Gorno-Altaisk, on the Ulalinka river in Siberia. According to a 1984 report by Russian scientists A. P. Okladinov and L. A. Ragozin, the tools were found in layers 1.5-2.5 million years old."

Little has been written about it in Western journals. The second source I encountered about it, is a travel agent based in Krasnoyarsk, Russia, that mentions the attractions in Gorno-Altaisk, and casually refers to the site on their website:


"Ulalinskaya Paleolithic site
Ulalinskaya Paleolithic site is one of the main sights in Gorno-Altaysk. It is situated on the bank of the Ulalushka River, after which the site took its name.
The site constantly attracts attention of archeologists. It was found during the excavations of 1960-1970s under the guidance of academician Alexey Okladnikov. Exactly that time more than 600 stone tools were found, referring to the age of Paleolith. It proves the fact that the territory was made habitable more than 1,5 million years ago. Although the views of geologists about this subject are still not common. Some experts determine the age of the site in the range of 100 - 350 thousand years; others indicate the date from 690 thousand to half a million years.
Unfortunately, only primitive tools, no other traces of sites of ancient people were found during excavations.
This sensational archeological find became the city’s pride. No wonder that exactly these tools are depicted in the coat of arms since 1996.
The debates over this discovery are conducted to this day - many scientists believe, it would a grand hoax of the 20th century.
"


coat of arms

Gorno-Altaysk means "Mountainous Altai" in Russian, note that (1) this article calls the river Ulaluska, and the site Ulalinskaya. (2) It suggests it may be a hoax. (3) And that the city adopted the tools in its coat of arms (pictured).


Details


The site is located in the twon of Gorno-Altaysk itself — 51°°57'20.7"N 85°58'25.5"E (see it in Google maps) which is 110 km (68 mi.) as the crow flies, from the famous Denisova Cave.


The megalithic.co.uk website has some pictures of the site.


There is an English language publication A. P. Okladnikov and G. A. Pospelova, 1982 (Ulalinka, the Oldest Palaeolithic Site in Siberia p. 710–712, Current Anthropology Vol 23, No 6 (🔒 paywalled, but you can read the first page of the paper). Which says that it was discovered in 1961 on the Maima River, at its confluence with the Ulalinka River by the cemetery of Gorno-Altaysk. It describes the sedimentary layers in the dig, which produced neolithic tools from its upper layer (younger than 25,000 years - 25 ky), and then, the one with the primitive eoliths:


"The main cultural level of this section, associated with the boulder-pebble horizon, differs from the upper one and from all other known Palaeolithic sites in Siberia principally in the strikingly archaic shapes of the tools and their primitive technology. The tools were made almost entirely from pebbles of yellowish-white quartzite, whole or split in half, and sometimes from pebbles of obsidian and quartzite fragments.
The finds include choppers, chopping tools, scrapers, a peculiar pebble core and tools with a spoutlike curved projection that might have served as cutting instruments. All these tools are nearly untreated pebbles, only slightly retouched (fig 1)
[see it below]. All the artifacts are amorphous. They may sometimes have served as cutting tools, sometimes as scrapers, sometimes both functions at once. Their primitive diversity seems to reflect the pursuit of a useful and stable shape. The stone inventory and the techniques of manufacture are so primitive and peculiar that they cannot be classified in the framework of the classic Lower Palaeolithic typology. The nomenclature of the Western European schemes cannot be applied to them."


Below is Fig. 1 from this paper, showing these tools. The article adds that the "archaeological data alone were insufficient to estimate the age of these tools", and that they used other, geological, paleogeographical, and paleontological techniques. There were different opinions among the scholars, with some dating it at no more than 40 ky, while others, including the author of the paper in two articles published in 1964 and 1972, Gaiduk, 1968, and Ceitlin, 1979 placed it in the Lower Pleistocene.


The articles, in Russian, are:
Okladnikov, A.P., 1964. Ulalinka–the earliest Palaeolithic occupation in Siberia. Investiya AN SSSR 1/1, 131–133.
Okladnikov, A.P. 1972, Ulalinka – drevnepaleoliticheskiy pamyatnik Sibiri. In Paleolit i neolit SSSR, vol. 7. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 7–19. (MIA; No. 185).
Gaiduk, I. M. 1968. Kamenny vek basseina Verhnei i Srednei Obi. (paleolit, neolit). Avtoreferat dissertatsii, Novosibirsk.
Zeitlin (or Ceitlin S.M. 1979. Geology of the Paleolithic of Northern Asia. Moscow: Nauka. Yamskikh


eoliths from Siberia

Ulalinka is cited by Dennell, Rendell and Hailwood, 1988 "... the artefacts from the site of Ulalinka in Soviet Central Asia, that were dated to the Olduvai Event (Okladinov & Pospelova, 1982), but need not be older than the Brunhes- Matuyama boundary at c. 0.7 My."

Shunkov, 2005 gives it an old, yet more recent age "The available palaeomagnetic and radiothermoluminescence (RTL) dates suggest attribution of the lowermost layers at Ulalinka to a wide chronological range of c. 300 - 400 ka to 1.5 mya (Okladnikov et al. 1985). The lower chronological boundary seems doubtful, whereas the upper boundary is reliable, supporting the age estimates of the Ulalinka site as older than 300 ka."


However, an older dating is provided by UNESCO in History of civilizations of Central Asia, v. 1: The Dawn of civilization, earliest times to 700 B.C., 1992 (see p. 54), though with some reservations; highlights are mine:


"The site of Ulalinka, within the town of Gornoaltaisk in the northern Altai, gives rise to considerable controversy among specialists. Discovered in 1961, it was excavated overseveral seasons by A. P. Okladnikov. Beneath a four-metre layer of alluvial loam lies a stratum of multicoloured clays resting on boulder deposits. In the lower part of the clay, which geologists ascribe to the Kochorka Eneopleistocene suite, a series of hand-worked pebbles is to be found in a seam of yellow-ochre-coloured clay, containing quartzite boulders and pebbles. Palaeomagnetic analysis suggests that the yellow-ochre is in the Matayama zone of negative magnetization. The thermoluminescent date of the layer that contains the tools is 1.48 million years. [Note: Matayama reversal, or negative magnetization took place between 2.58 and 0.78 million years ago]
The archaeological material is restricted to quartzite tools scattered among the pebbles in the clay. Okladnikov identifies several groups: crude pebble ‘proto-axes’, ‘tools with anextended nose’, crudely made choppers and crude scrapers. Particular attention was paid to laterally split quartzite pebbles with dressed edges and tips. Although these artefacts are comparable in period with the Olduvan industry, their general appearance does not allow direct analogies to be drawn with that site or its typological series. The reason is that Ulalinka lacks both stable designs and, most importantly, the usual signs of deliberate working – the struck crest, surface cutting, precise spalling facets and so on. Okladnik overcomes this difficulty by explaining that the Ulalinka finds are unusual in that the pebbles were split not by striking but by being heated in a fire and then dropped in water. Analysing the formation about this site, it should be noted that until more convincing evidence is available, Okladnikov’s conclusions cannot be unreservedly accepted."


Another online reference (Novosibirsk State University (NSU) in Russia, in english) states that "Ulalinka which lies within the limits of today's Gorno-Altaisk, is the most ancient settlement of primitive man. During the excavation of the Ulalinka site some primitive stone tools were found. The fire technique, that is the heating and quick cooling of stones, was used when making the tools. Ulalinka's finds are dated within the limits of the lower Palaeolithic period - from 150000 BC to 1.5 million years."


The final reference is Zwyns, 2012: "The Ulalinka site was discovered in 1961 by Okladnikov and was intensively investigated starting in 1969. The dating of human occupation at theses sites varies depending of the authors (Maloletko, 1972; Okladnikov, 1972; Gayduk, 1973; Okladnikov and Pospelova, 1982; Ragozin and Shliukov, 1984; Tseitlin, 1986) and doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of the lithic assemblage (Mochanov, 1976; Medvedev, 1983 quoted after Derevianko et al., 2001). Okladnikov admitted that evidence of percussion is not clear (Okladnikov, 1972) but other scholars observed and described nearly a hundred artifacts (Abramova, 1989)."


Conclusions


The site at Ulalinka is controversial, deemed very old by some, recent by others, or even a hoax. It is part of a trend that reveals several sites in Siberia, far older than accepted in the West, described in papers written in Russian, and therefore, ignored and not cited by Western archaeologists.



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 © 

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Monkeys and the pre-Clovis stone tools in Brazil


Although I am a strong supporter of an early peopling of America (over 20 and possibly 50 or even 100 kya), I must be fair and that is why this post will look into the intriguing possibility that monkeys, not humans, crafted the crude stone tools dated to around 40,000 years ago, found in Brazil.


The first to suggest this idea was Stuart Fiedel, in 2017, with a research paper titled Did Monkeys Make the Pre-Clovis Pebble Tools of Northeastern Brazil?, in it, he reports that the capuchin monkeys of South America use pebbles as tools to crack open nuts, they hammer them with these cobbles to open them. They also pound wood to find bugs. In the process, they leave behind remains that resemble man-made stone tools. They may have been doing so for the past 100,000 years!


monkey cracking nut with a stone
monkey using stone tool
Capuchin monkeys using stone tools to crack nuts. Source

The idea is interesting. The remains left behind by monkeys look like human stone tools. Furthermore, the paper suggests that monkeys taught humans how to use local resoures: "the possible influence of monkeys’ tool use on human behaviour. For example, cashew nuts are native to this area of Brazil, and it is possible that the first humans to arrive here learned about this unknown food through watching the monkeys and their primate cashew-processing industry..."


The matter was followed up by two Argentine researchers, Agustín and Federico Agnolín (see article) suggest that the stone tools attributed to pre-Clovis humans are in fact made by monkeys. They didn't find any differences or evolution between the tools that are 50,000 years old, and contemporary monkey-made tools: "Our study shows that the tools from Pedra Furada and other nearby sites in Brazil were nothing more than the product of capuchin monkeys breaking nuts and rocks some 50,000 years before the present,” says F. Agnolín, also a researcher at the ‘Argentine Museum of Natural Sciences “Bernardino Rivadavia”’ (MACN-CONICET), and the “Azara Foundation.”"


Besides using rock hammers to dig, and break open nuts, the capuchin monkeys also use them to pulverize other stones and lick the mineral-rich dust as natural mineral supplements. The resulting flaked stone fragments resemble human-made stone tools.


The authors argue that the ancient tools attributed to humans, found at the Piedra Furada site (see my post about this site), are far to simple to have been made by humans "they always consisted of fractured pebbles, anvils, hammers, and jagged-edged rock fragments, but other types of tools never appeared. All these characteristics are indistinguishable from the tools used today by capuchin monkeys".


But, what if... they are the work of a cobble or pebble type lithic industry, simliar to the Oldowan, one used by archaic hominins? Could Homo habilis or even Australopiths have reached America with primitive stone tool know-how?


Read the paper here: Agnolín, A. M., & Agnolín, F. L. (2022). Holocene capuchin-monkey stone tool deposits shed doubts on the human origin of archeological sites from the Pleistocene of Brazil. The Holocene, 09596836221131707. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836221131707



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025by Austin Whittall © 

Monday, January 19, 2026

Australopiths and Homo may have coexisted in Dmanisi 1.8 My ago


The Dmanisi site in Georgia, in the Caucasus region has produced many fossil remains whose exact position in our ancestral tree is still being debated. These are the oldest hominin remains discovered out of Africa, and reveal that our ancestors left Africa as soon as they could.


A paper published on Dec. 3, 2025 (Nery V, Neves W, Valota L, Hubbe M (2025) Testing the taxonomy of Dmanisi hominin fossils through dental crown area. PLoS One 20(12): e0336484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336484) studied the teeth of the Dmanisi hominin remains (H. Georgicus), and suggests that more than one species of hominins lived in Dmanisi, Georgia.


After analyzing teeth shapes the authors found that one specimen (D4500-D2600) shows strong affinities with australopiths, while others (D2282-D211 and D2700-D2735) are associated to Homo species. Based on this the paper suggests that "two distinct taxa coexist[ed] at the Dmanisi site, previously proposed to be Homo georgicus and Homo caucasi."


This conclusion has interesting implications regarding the first Out Of Africa migrations which until now have been attributed to our ancient ancestor, Homo erectus. The authors of this paper state the following:


"Although our analyses did not formally test the phylogenetic history of the Pleistocene Georgian hominins, the proposal of more than one species in the Dmanisi fossil assemblage has implications for the dispersal of the genus Homo out of Africa in the beginning of the Pleistocene. It is traditionally accepted that the Homo erectus migration started in Kenya (Turkana) around 1.89 Ma, reached Georgia (Dmanisi) around 1.77 Ma, continued into eastern Eurasia (Yuanmou) around 1.7 Ma, and finally arrived to Indonesia (Sangiran) by ~1.57 Ma. However, the speciation events that led to the evolution of more than one species in Dmanisi requires that lineages were separated for long periods after leaving Africa, and were likely also evolving in response to different selective environments.
...
If the Dmanisi specimens cannot be taxonomically grouped with Homo erectus, it raises the possibility that early Homo evolution had multiple episodes of cladogenesis, where some of them may have started in Africa, and others outside Africa. Of particular interest to this discussion is the high similarity between the D4500-D2600 specimen and australopiths, which suggests either a retention of the ancestral dental proportions of australopiths in Dmanisi, or an evolutionary convergence after the initial differentiation of early Homo. With the evidence available, it is not possible to properly evaluate if Homo georgicus and Homo caucasi evolved from Homo erectus ancestors, or if they evolved from australopith-like ancestors, but alternative scenarios are worth exploring and considering as new early Homo fossils are discovered in Asia.
"


The paper also mentions evidence of an earlier expansion out of Africa, signalled by more primitive stone technology, the Oldowan, which is older than the Acheulean tool kit of the H. erectus: "Recent discoveries of Oldowan tools and associated cut marks in Jordan and Romania, respectively, predate the arrival of Homo erectus to these regions, offering further support for the presence of earlier hominin species in the north of or even outside of Africa [16,56,57]"


The citations 16, 56, and 57 are the following:


16.Neves W, Senger MH, Valota L, Hubbe M. Revisiting the cranial variability of the Dmanisi hominins. Anthropol Rev. 2024;87(2):113–25.


56.Parenti F, Varejao FG, Scardia G, Okumura M, Araujo A, Ferreira Guedes CC, et al. The Oldowan of Zarqa Valley, Northern Jordan. J Paleolit Archaeol. 2024;7(1):3.


57.Curran SC, Dragusin V, Pobiner B, Pante M, Hellstrom J, Woodhead J, et al. Hominin presence in Eurasia by at least 1.95 million years ago. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):836. pmid:39833162


Consequences of Australopithecines in Georgia


An earlier presence of archaic Australopith hominins in Eurasia opens the door to the evolution (outside of Africa) of Homo erectus there from an earlier wave who peopled the area. H. erectus probably originated in Eurasia and later moved "into Africa", as well as moving "around Eurasia", possibly following the steps of these Australopithecines (why would they have only trekked to Georgia? They could have even reached East Asia or Sunda, Sahul... and America). If the Australopiths were part of the first migration out of Africa, maybe 2 Million years ago, it opens up many new, unexpected options for the peopling of the world, and the origin of "Homo".


My previous posts on Dmanisi and H. Georgicus:


The First Asians were not H. erectus


Homo habilis left Africa 2.4 million years ago


H. erectus in Georgia 1.8 Ma (Kvemo Orozmani site). Aug. 2025 discovery


Homo georgicus revisited: An ancient peopling of Eurasia



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

Sunday, November 16, 2025

Hominins and stone tools in Sunda 1.48 Ma - Implications


A paper published last August in Nature (Hakim, B., Wibowo, U.P., van den Bergh, G.D. et al. Hominins on Sulawesi during the Early Pleistocene. Nature 646, 378–383 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09348-6) reported finding stone tools and flakes older than 1 million years, and possibly up to 1.48 Ma on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia.


The oldest tools that had been found in the area were found at Wolo Sege on Flores Island, home of the minute Hobbit Homo floresiensis, that were 1.02 million years old. Some stone tools and bones with man-made cut marks were discovered in Luzon, and island in the Pilippines, dated to 777-631 thousand years ago. These are much older.


The paper states that> "The dispersal of archaic hominins beyond mainland Southeast Asia (Sunda) represents the earliest evidence for humans crossing ocean barriers to reach isolated landmasses... On Sulawesi, the largest Wallacean island, previous excavations revealed stone artefacts with a minimum age of 194 ka at the open site of Talepu in the Walanae Depression, long preceding the earliest known presence of modern humans (Homo sapiens) in the region (73–63 ka in Sunda). Here we show that stone artefacts also occur at the nearby site of Calio in fossiliferous layers dated to at least 1.04 Ma and possibly up to 1.48 Ma... The discovery of Early Pleistocene artefacts at Calio suggests that Sulawesi was populated by hominins at around the same time as Flores, if not earlier."


Primitive Stone "artifacts"


The authors found "seven flaked stone artefacts... All stone artefacts are made of chert, alternately known as silicified limestone in some of the related literature. This source material is abundantly present among the naturally occurring pebbles, but the stone artefacts differ statistically by their larger size compared with unmodified pebble-sized clasts excavated from the same fluvial sandstone deposits... These results suggest that the stone artefacts were produced by hominins outside the Calio site and carried there for use as tools, further underlining the anthropogenic origin of these objects. It is also possible that some or all artefacts could have been eroded out of riverbanks by laterally migrating fluvial channels, and may therefore be older than the layers in which they were found."


They are not Acheulean, a mark of H. erectus, these are stones used simple tool-making techniques that hint at an Oldowan origin. However, the stones were carefully struck, and retouched: "The flakes were struck by the hard-hammer freehand percussion technique and range from 21.9 to 60.1 mm long along the percussion axes... The reduction of large flakes into smaller flakes, which were themselves retouched, suggests that a two-step reduction process was sometimes used to reduce the natural chert cobbles into suitably-sized tools. The evidence for reduction of cores-on-flakes, frequent core rotation and understanding of hard-hammer fracture mechanics attests to expert technical knowledge within the context of a straightforward, ‘least effort’ approach to toolmaking.".


The authors conclude that "it now seems possible that hominin occupation of this large Wallacean island preceded that of Luzon to the north and is at least as old as, and potentially earlier than, the hominin presence on Flores to the south. However, precisely when hominins first crossed to Sulawesi remains an open question, as does the taxonomic affinity of the colonizing population."


These people predate the hominins of Luzon and the hobbits of Flores. Their stool-making techniques suggests that they were not H. erectus, could they have been the easternmost members of the group that reached Georgia (Dmanisi people), a branch of H. georgicus?


stone tools Sulawesi

A 2024 paper (D. Ma,S. Pei,F. Xie,Z. Ye,F. Wang,J. Xu,C. Deng, & I. de la Torre, Earliest Prepared core technology in Eurasia from Nihewan (China): Implications for early human abilities and dispersals in East Asia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121 (11) e2313123121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2313123121, 2024) noted that in Niwehan, in northern China, west of Beijing, stone tools dated to 1.1 million years ago, were Acheulean style (or mode-2 technology - compared to Oldowan or mode-1), despite the lack of the characteristic handaxe that this type of stone knapping produces. They attribute the lack of handaxes to the poor quality of the raw materials used. They find that these tools "at 1.1 Mya now constitutes one of the world’s earliest occurrences of prepared core technologies... This may suggest that mode 2 hominins dispersed into East Asia much earlier than previously thought and, given that the earliest occupation of China could be over 2 Ma, our results may also point at multiple migrations of early hominins into East Asia throughout the early Pleistocene."


The tools, in my layman opinion, seem to be Oldowan. The authors explain that they are Acheulean because they display higher mental abilities required to perform additional steps in knapping, elaborate techniques, and "standardized end products". They admit that "the differences between CJW (and by extension other Nihewan sites) and the typical Acheulean should not be ignored, and the absence of handaxes in East Asian sites cannot be attributed to raw material availability only... we propose that these mode 2 hominins with complex technical abilities were led to produce smaller tools due to the poor local raw material quality and environmental conditions, which may have also required the development of new survival strategies and/or technological innovations to adapt to the local environmental conditions in this region of northern China."


If we accept their explanations, then two (or more) different populations peopled Asia 1.1 Ma, one in Sunda another in China, with different tool-making techniques. This was way before Denisovans, Neanderthals and modern humans. Were they H. erectus? Dmanisi - H. georgicus? Another unknown hominin?


Could any of these groups have moved north and then east, into America? They would have had 1 million years with the New World for themselves before modern humans arrived around 30 ky ago, or perhaps Neanderthals and⁄or Denisovans arrived during the past 500 ky. Who knows? Nobody ever digs deep enough to look for any remains older than 20,000 years in the New World.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, November 14, 2025

H. erectus in Georgia 1.8 Ma (Kvemo Orozmani site). Aug. 2025 discovery


After my recent post on Homo georgicus and the Dmanisi site in Georgia, eastern Europe. I read about other sites in the area, and learned that in the Georgian village of Orozmani, roughly 13 km (8 miles) from Dmainsi, two remarkable discoveries had been made: in 2021 a tooth was found, and in July of 2025, a 1.8-million-year-old jawbone was dug up, it belongs to Homo erectus. (Source.)


map Europe, North Africa, Dmanisi migration, Asia
Africa, West Eurasia and Dmanisi, Georgia map. A. Whittall © 2025

The map above gives some perspective. The distance, in a straight line, from the closest point of Africa to Dmanisi (Suez Canal), and the site in Dmanisi is 1,600 km, or 1,000 miles. These people moved all the way from the alleged cradle of mankind in Turkana, Kenya, and Olduvai in Tanzania, to Sinai to bridge the Red Sea (2,900 km - 1,800 mi.) and then enter an unknown territory to trek another 1,600 km - 1,000 miles north into the Caucasus Region.


Implications


In what is now Georgia (Dmanisi and Kvemo Orozmani) these hominins could have evolved becoming H. erectus. Erectus later moved west deeper into Asia (where we find them in Indonesia and China), and being the top hominins of their era, they also surely back-migrated into Africa, where they evolved into H. heidelbergensis / rhodesiensis, from which our Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors arose, leaving Africa for a second time. Those remaining in Africa evolved into archaic African sapiens ancestors. Perhaps, at the same time, the Asian erectus in the Far Eastern parts of Asia evolved into the archaic sapiens that the Chinese have been uncovering there.


The Papers on the Orozmani site


There is only one paper on this site and most of the information comes from the media reporting the findings. Apparently an international team of reasearchers from different European countries have been digging here since 2021. That year stone tools and the bones of animals hade been discovered and dated to a similar age to the nearby Dmanisi site (1.77 to 1.84 million years). The tooth has not yet been associated with any hominin. The jawbone from the summer of 2025 seems to belong to a H. erectus. See this media news release.


The only reference I have found (Google Scholar and combing the Internet) is this one:
Bidzinashvili, G., Chagelashvili, R., Coil, R., Kopaliani, G., Martkoplishvili, I., & Vanishvili, N. (2023). Kvemo Orozmani, Georgia: a new Lower Paleolithic archaeological site in the Southern Caucasus. Paper presented at Paleoanthropology Society Meetings, Portland, Oregon, United States.
Its abstract is the given below. Note that this paper dates back to March 2023, and is reporting the first findings, not the jawbone.


"The Southern Caucasus represent one of the hubs for the earliest range expansions of hominins during the Early Pleistocene, as evidenced by the extensive archaeological site at Dmanisi, Georgia. Here, we present findings from a new Lower Paleolithic archaeological site in Georgia: Kvemo Orozmani, which is located approximately twenty kilometers west of Dmanisi. Previous dating and analyses of phytoliths and sedimentology correlated the Kvemo Orozmani and nearby Zemo Orozmani sequences to the Dmanisi stratigraphy, indicating roughly contemporaneous localities (Messager et al., 2011). A recent revisit to the Kvemo Orozmani profile revealed Oldowan-like stone artifacts along with faunal remains. Subsequent excavations began in 2020 and have produced more lithic artifacts, faunal remains from numerous carnivores and ungulates, and a hominin tooth. The latter find doubles the number of hominin-bearing Early Pleistocene localities in the Southern Caucasus and offers potential insights into the hominin populations who expanded into this region. Here, we present our initial findings on site formation, archaeology, taphonomy, and paleontology and how this site fits into the greater context of the earliest hominin expansions into Eurasia."


Interestingly it mentions "Oldowan-like stone artifacts" which are pre-Homo erectus, the erectus people developed the Acheulean lithic techology, Oldowan is associated with H. habilis, though a recent study published this year suggest that another group of hominins, the Paranthropus boisei, could have used Oldowan techniques around 2.8 million years ago.


Another online link in Research Gate is the following (Kvemo Orozmani, Georgia: a new Lower Paleolithic archaeological site in the Southern Caucasus): A pdf with images, maps and little text. It has the same title, but seems like a presentation of the paper, not the paper itself. It includes the tooth, coprolites, and the tools. The following map is from this pdf.


map Georgia Europe
Kvemo Orozmani and Dmanisi, Georgia map. From Bidzinashvili, G. et al. 2023.

It also includes images of their stone tools, which look very primitive, almost geofacts. Clearly Oldowan and not the Acehulean tools of H. erectus. As mentioned further up, Oldowan means primitive hominins, like H. habilis, Paranthroupus and also, some australopithecus. The image below is from the same 2023 paper.

oldowan tools from Orozmani

Now we will have to wait for the publication on this 2025 jaw discovery and for the identification of the hominin that provided the tooth.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

Thursday, November 11, 2021

24 kyr Stone Tools in Pedra Furada, Brazil


Earlier this year a paper by Eric Boëda ( Boëda E, Ramos M, Perez A, Hatté C, Lahaye C, Pino M, et al. (2021) 24.0 kyr cal BP stone artefact from Vale da Pedra Furada, Piauí, Brazil: Techno-functional analysis. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0247965. rRephttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247965) analyzed stone tools dated 24,000 years old, from Brazil. The interesting part is (see my previous post) that the authors acknowledge the conflict between orthodox scholars and those that support an early peopling of America.


They wrote: "The peopling of the Americas continues to be subject of intense debate, basically between two positions that often do not consider fully South American research: a Last Glacial Maximum (LGM sensu stricto, dated between 19–23 kyr BP) occupation (current consensus) and a pre-LGM occupation. In support of the latter, a growing body of evidence demonstrates a Late Pleistocene human presence (i.e. Paleoamerican) in South America well beyond 20 cal kyr BP"


The article then goes on to describe stone tools and one in particular (24 kya). What I found interesting is the authors' comment that the older layers have cobble type quarz tools (they look Oldowan to my layman eyes. See Fig. 5), and as you reach younger levels, the tools morph into bifacial tools (Fig. 7). Both are shown below:


Fig. 5 they look like Pebble tools (Oldowan)

Fig. 7, bifacial (Acheulean axes?)

Anyway, these findings show two things. One, evidence is mounting and it supports an earlier peopling of America and, two, that North American scientists wouldn't even see an ancient stone industry tool because they don't think there are any in the Americas. They will ignore it or consider it a geofact.


Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2021 by Austin Whittall © 

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Pendejo Cave: humans in America 55,000 years ago?


Pendejo Cave in New Mexico has produced some interesting evidence of an early migration into America. The book I browsed online (Pendejo Cave, Richard S. MacNeish, Jane G. Liddy UNM Press, 2003) has plenty of information.


It was excavated by MacNeish between February 1990 and April 1992. He found evidence of Pre-Clovis occupation and figures of up to 50,000 years BP were given at that time.


First a trivial remark. "Pendejo" (Pen-Day-Hoe) in Spanish means "pubic hair" and is used as a derogatory term equivalent to "idiot", "kid", "jerk", etc. Why was the cave given this name, is a mystery.


But let's get back to the science. Here several things were found:


  • Palm prints on baked clay 12-37Ky BP (source)
  • Human hairs 19,500 years old with DNA that did not correspond to the "four primary clusters" of Native American DNA (page 428).
  • A buffalo bone 35,000 years with chips caused by human workmanship (source)
  • The "heel bone" of a horse species which is now extinct, with a stone wedge jammed into it, 36,000 years old (source and photo)

The cave is shown below:



The book also includes several maps showing how the humans spread across the Americas from Beringia, but long before the currently accepted dates. Below is one image (I liked the lower left "sea level" swings during the different glacial and interglacial periods, as it shows several windows during which humans could have reached America earlier than 15 to 20 Kya and the purported Beringian standstill).


One of the book's maps

McNeish proposed a very early arrival date for Humans in America (58,000 to 70,000 years ago), below is an excerpt from the book (page 486) where he mentions it:



It mentions the "pebble tools" (Orogrande tool complex) such as those found in the cave and shown in the map above.


The coarse tools are used by those who question McNeish's findings because they dismiss them as too crude or even as geofacts (not man made).

However Homo habilis made very coarse tools ("Oldowan" pebble tools and choppers), so maybe the Pendejo Cave people were not even Homo sapiens.


As expected the dates were questioned by those who object an early migration into the New World. McNeish passed away in 2001, but his work has survived.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2020 by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

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 © 
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/