Stone tools discovery prompts re-think of African theory

The belief that a type of technology known as Levallois – where the flakes and blades of stones were used to make useful products such as hunting weapons was invented in Africa and then spread to other continents as the human population expanded can now be discounted say the researchers.

At an archaeological site in Armenia called Nor Geghi 1, the researchers discovered that these types of tools already existed there between 325,000 and 335,000 years ago, suggesting that local populations developed them out of a more basic type of technology, known as biface, which was also found at the site.

Archaeologists have argued that Levallois technology was invented in Africa and spread to Eurasia with expanding human populations, replacing local biface technologies in the process. This theory draws a link between populations and technologies and thus equates technological change with demographic change. The co-existence of the two technologies at Nor Geghi 1 provides the first clear evidence that local populations developed Levallois technology out of existing biface technology.

Nor Geghi 1, is a unique site preserved between two lava flows dated to 200,000–400,000 years ago. Layers of floodplain sediments and an ancient soil found between these lava flows contain the archaeological material. The dating of volcanic ash found within the sediments and detailed study of the sediments themselves allowed researchers to correlate the stone tools with a period between 325,000 and 335,000 years ago when the Earth’s climate was similar to today’s.

"I thought modern humans first developed around 200,000 years ago, in Africa, and did not migrate out of Africa until about 80,000 to 100,000 years ago."

(There have been at least seven distinct humans in our past. The, previously unknown, Denisovians were just discovered in Siberia, which should make it eight)

"Extinct Humans" is a fascinating account of human evolution, extraordinarily illustrated with crisp, powerful photographs of fossils which drive home the point that these are the remains of actual beings who have inhabited this world before us, whether they were our direct ancestors or instead "cousins" to our own line of descent. Tattersall and Schwartz have studied not just the literature on the subject, but virtually all the fossils themselves, giving them a perhaps unmatched command of the variations in the homanid fossil record. They argue persuasively in a clear, well-organized text that modern Homo sapiens is the sole survivor of the many distinct homanid species which have existed over the past two million years, that most of the fossils which have been found represent not ancestors of our own specific line, but relatives which split off in different directions before ultimately coming to a literal dead end. Their discussion of the interaction between Neaderthals and modern humans in Europe (and possibly between Homo erectus and modern humans in southeast Asia) is especially absorbing, delving into questions of technological change, the emergence of symbolic thought, and the creation of language.
The study of human evolution has, well, evolved enormously in the 35 years I have been interested in the topic. "Extinct Humans" is, to my way of thinking, today's best summary and analysis of current knowledge.

These guys in Georgia are causing some heartburn to the 'standard' out-of-Africa theory.

Stranger In A New Land

Image: JOHN GURCHE PORTRAIT OF A PIONEER With a brain half the size of a modern one and a brow reminiscent of Homo habilis, this hominid is one of the most primitive members of our genus on record. Paleoartist John Gurche reconstructed this 1.75-million-year-old explorer from a nearly complete teenage H. erectus skull and associated mandible found in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. The background figures derive from two partial crania recovered at the site.

The most recent data establishes that they were not travelers/explorers but have lived there for thousands of years.

Re: “Of course they were human, just not the same.”

I have no idea what that means.

Anthropologists and Paleontologists use specific fossils and DNA to describe different kinds of hominids.

The word “Human” has a specific meaning when they use it.

Re: “Or put you in the place and conditions they lived in, how long do you think you would survive?”

What does that have to do with my earlier comment?

Neanderthals might literally eat Liberals for breakfast ... Neanderthals were neither left nor right, and certainly very intelligent ... far more so than any Liberal today. Do not besmirch Neanderthals by associating them with Liberals ... and if you are of European descent very likely have some component of their DNA; DNA does not correlate with political persuasion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.