Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - More on Stone Tool Manufacture in China

Refuting Creationism

More On Stone Tool Manufacture In China
50,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

The Quina tool kit from Longtan.

Credit: >Hao Li

Quina tools from Longtan

Stone tool discovery in China shows people in East Asia were innovating during the Middle Paleolithic, like in Europe and Middle East

I wrote about the find recently, but this version incorporates the article in The Conversation by Professor Ben Marwick.

The recent unearthing of Quina-style stone tools in southwest China has sparked significant interest in the archaeological community, as detailed in a recent article from The Conversation by Professor Ben Marwick, Professor of Archaeology, University of Washington.

These tools, previously associated predominantly with Neanderthal populations in Europe, were discovered at the Longtan site and have been dated to approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. Their presence in East Asia challenges longstanding assumptions about the technological development of early human populations in this region.

Traditionally, the Middle Paleolithic period in East Asia was thought to lack the technological innovations seen in contemporaneous European and Middle Eastern contexts. The discovery of these sophisticated tools suggests that early human groups in East Asia were engaging in complex tool-making practices similar to those of their western counterparts. This finding not only broadens our understanding of human technological evolution but also indicates a more interconnected prehistoric world than previously believed.

From a scientific perspective, such discoveries are invaluable in piecing together the mosaic of human history. However, they also pose challenges to certain interpretative frameworks, particularly those rooted in a literalist reading of religious texts. The existence of advanced tool-making practices tens of thousands of years ago stands in contrast to timelines proposed by young-Earth creationist views, which assert a much more recent origin of humanity.

In light of this, the Longtan findings serve as a compelling reminder of the importance of evidence-based inquiry in our quest to understand human origins. They underscore the dynamic and multifaceted nature of our past, inviting us to reconsider and refine our narratives in the face of new evidence.

Professor Marwick's article is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Published: March 31, 2025 8.03pm BST

Stone tool discovery in China shows people in East Asia were innovating during the Middle Paleolithic, like in Europe and Middle East

The artifacts found at Longtan, southwest China, were as old as 60,000 years.

Qijun Ruan.

Ben Marwick, University of Washington

New technologies today often involve electronic devices that are smaller and smarter than before. During the Middle Paleolithic, when Neanderthals were modern humans’ neighbors, new technologies meant something quite different: new kinds of stone tools that were smaller but could be used for many tasks and lasted for a long time.

Archaeologists like me are interested in the Middle Paleolithic – a period spanning 250,000 to 30,000 years ago – because it includes the first appearance of our species, our arrival into many parts of the world for the first time, and our invention of many new kinds of stone tools.

Illustration of the raw material, a core, flake and scraper

Illustration of a typical Quina scraper and related tools. The toolmaker would flake pieces of stone off the core to carefully shape the Quina scraper.

Pei-Yuan Xiao.

In our study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of international collaborators and I describe our discovery in China of the first complete example of a Middle Paleolithic technology previously seen only in Europe and the Middle East.

Archaeologists have thought that ancient people in East Asia completely skipped the Middle Paleolithic. Our discovery challenges the long-standing notion that while ancient people in Europe and Africa were inventing new tools during this period, people of East Asia stuck to only the most basic tools that remained unchanged for thousands of years.

Arrangement of various stone tools, some from multiple angles.

The Quina tool kit from Longtan. (A–D) Quina scrapers. (E–G) Quina cores. (H-J) Resharpening flakes showing Quina retouch at the near end of the top face. (K) Small tool made on resharpening flake.

Hao Li.

Quina scrapers helped hunters process kills

The tool we’ve identified is called a Quina scraper. This type of stone tool is well known from archaeological sites in Europe and the Middle East.

Quina scrapers are typically quite thick and asymmetrical, with a broad and sharp working edge that shows clear signs of being used and resharpened multiple times. This shape results in durable cutting edges, ideal for long cycles of use followed by resharpening.

People used Quina scrapers to scrape and cut soft materials, such as meat and animal skins, and medium-hard materials, such as wood. We know this from tiny scratches and chips on the scrapers that match traces caused by working these materials in experiments using contemporary stone tools.

European archaeologists believe that Quina scrapers were invented to meet the needs of highly mobile hunters living in cool and dry climates. These hunters were focused on seasonal migratory prey such as reindeer, giant deer, horse and bison. Quina scrapers would have helped them process their kills into food and other resources – for example, to extract marrow.

Map of central China showing the location of the site in the Tibetan Plateau. B. Arrow marks distant location on a landscape with mountains in background

A. Map showing the location of the discovery of the Quina tool kit in China, at the southern margin of the Hengduan Mountains of the Tibetan Plateau. B. View of the landscape showing the Longtan archaeological site.

Hao Li, CC BY-ND

First find of a Quina tool in East Asia

Our team, led by Hao Li of the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research and Qijun Ruan of the Yunnan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, excavated Quina scrapers and related stone tools from the Longtan archaeological site in southwest China.

Two men with a ladder working at the face of a cross-section of dirt in an archaeological site

Bo Li collects samples from Longtan for luminescence dating at his laboratory at the University of Wollongong.

Qijun Ruan

Our colleague Bo Li at the University of Wollongong used optical luminescence dating methods on the layers of earth that contained the artifacts. This technique can identify how much time has passed since each individual sand grain was last exposed to the Sun. Dating many individual grains in a sample is important because tree roots, insects or other animals can mix younger sediments down into older ones.

After we identified and removed intrusive younger grains, we found the layers containing the artifacts were 50,000 to 60,000 years old. This is roughly the same time Quina scrapers were being used in Europe at Neanderthal sites.

Keliang Zhao from China’s Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology looked at pollen grains from the Longtan excavations. He found that the Middle Paleolithic people of Longtan lived in a relatively open forest-grassland environment and a dry and cool climate. This environment is similar to that of Quina sites in Europe.

Davide Delpiano, Marco Peresani and Marie-Hélène Moncel, experts on European Middle Paleolithic tools, joined our team to help with the comparison of the Chinese and European specimens and confirm their similarities.

Hélène Monod, from Universidad Rovira i Virgili in Spain, looked at our Quina scrapers under the microscope and found traces on them from scraping and scratching bones, antlers and wood. She also found polish from using the tools on meat, hides and soft plants.

Who lived in East Asia during this period?

Our new discovery of Quina scrapers joins another recent find of a different kind of Middle Paleolithic technology in East Asia: Levallois tools from Guanyindong Cave in Guizhou Province in south-central China. Levallois tools result from a distinctive multistep sequence that efficiently produces lots of useful cutting tools, with minimal wasted stone. Taken together, these two finds make a strong case that Middle Paleolithic technologies were present in East Asia.

But why are we only just finding this Quina tool kit now, when it has been known in Europe for such a long time?

One reason is that archaeologists have been looking in Europe for longer than almost anywhere else in the world. Another reason Middle Paleolithic evidence appears rare in East Asia is because what now seem to be less typical variations of the Quina tool kit previously found in China had been overlooked, likely due to archaeologists’ narrow definitions based on European examples.

The Quina tools at Longtan are among the earliest artifacts from that site, which makes it hard for researchers to determine the origins of this new technology. Was it introduced by visitors from Europe? Or did local people in East Asia independently invent it?

8 people stand beside high table displaying hundreds of small stone tools

The research team shows off the Longtan artifacts.

Hao Li

To answer these questions, we hope to find more Quina scrapers at sites with deeper – meaning older – layers than Longtan. If older layers hold what look like the remnants of experiments in stone toolmaking that would eventually result in Quina tools, it suggests Quina tools were invented locally. If deeper layers have dissimilar tools, that suggests Quina technology was introduced from a neighboring group.

We also hope future work will reveal who made these tools. Our excavations at Longtan did not find any human bone or DNA that could help us identify the toolmakers.

During the Middle Paleolithic, there were multiple human species that could make tools like this. It could have been modern humans like us. But it could also have been Neanderthals. Considering that the Quina technology in Europe is directly associated with Neanderthals, this seems likely. But it could also have been Denisovans, an extinct species similar to modern humans found during this time in Siberia, the Tibetan Plateau and Laos, or even a new human species that hasn’t been seen before.

Whoever was making and using these Quina scrapers, they were able to be inventive and flexible with their technology, adapting to their changing environment.
Ben Marwick, Professor of Archaeology, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Published by The Conversation.
Open access. (CC BY 4.0)

Significance
Neanderthal adaptation to Marine Isotope Stage 4 cold environments in Europe is reflected by subsistence behaviors and material culture, among which the Quina system of lithic production stands out being easily distinguishable from others. Quina industries are currently confined to European and western Asian countries. Hence, their discovery far outside Western Eurasia challenges the current scenario. The Quina technological system identified in Southwest China, dated to ~55 ka, is culturally in the European range, which challenges popular view that there is no “Middle Paleolithic” in this region and reveals a diversity of technology in the Chinese Middle Paleolithic. Our study further deepens the understanding of biocultural dynamics of Homo sapiens, Denisovans, and possibly other hominins in the Late Pleistocene of East Asia.

Abstract
The Late Pleistocene of Eurasia is key for understanding interactions between early modern humans and different types of archaic human groups. During this period, lithic technology shows more diversity and complexity, likely indicating flexible adaptative strategies. However, cultural variability as expressed by technological types remains vague in large parts of eastern Eurasia, like in China. Here, we report a complete Quina technological system identified from the study of the Longtan site in Southwest China. The site has been securely dated to ca. 60 to 50 thousand years ago (ka), with compelling evidence of core exploitation, production of large and thick flakes, shaping and maintenance of scrapers exhibiting the whole Quina concept, typical of contemporary European Middle Paleolithic technologies developed by Neanderthal groups adapted to climatic oscillations during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 4 and early MIS 3. The finding of a Quina lithic assemblage in China not only demonstrates the existence of a Middle Paleolithic technology in the region but also shows large-scale analogies with Neanderthal behaviors in western Europe. Longtan substantially extends the geographic distribution of this technical behavior in East Asia. Although its origin remains unclear, implications for Pleistocene hominin dispersal and adaptation to diverse ecological settings are considered. The Longtan lithic evidence also provides perspectives for understanding the cultural evolutionary situation before the large-scale arrivals of early modern humans in East Asia predating ~45 ka.o

Q. Ruan,H. Li,P. Xiao,B. Li,H. Monod,A. Sumner,K. Zhao,J. Liu,Z. Jia,C. Wang,A. Fan,M. Moncel,B. Marwick,M. Peresani,Y. Wang,F. Chen,& D. Delpiano
Quina lithic technology indicates diverse Late Pleistocene human dynamics in East Asia
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 122 (14) e2418029122, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2418029122 (2025).

© 2025 National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Several intriguing questions are raised by this discovery:

Did Neanderthals share their technology with Denisovans if these artifacts are in fact Denisovan artifacts? Or did Neanderthals get their tool-making technology from Denisovans, and we just haven't found the evidence in Asia yet?
Was there in fact a continuum of hominid species and subspecies distributed across Eurasia?
Did this stone-making technology arise spontaneously? The limited evidence is that it was acquired fully developed, but that could be because there is limited data.
Was there an entirely new species of hominin present in China that we have yet to be discovered?

These questions should interest anyone genuinely seeking the truth, as they provide opportunities for revising our understanding based on new information.

However, the dating itself is not in dispute. It is derived from reliable optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating, which accurately determines how long artefacts have been buried, within narrow confidence intervals.

This solid dating evidence directly contradicts the creationist belief in a young Earth. Science advances by embracing new data; in contrast, creationism persists only by ignoring inconvenient evidence and relying on unverified claims and superstition.

Needless to say, this find has been completely ignored by creationists, who have yet to develop excuses for dismissing the reliable optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating, used to determine when these stone artifacts were buried.

Advertisement

What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You

How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle and audiobook versions.

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle and audiobook versions.

Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.

Advertisement

Amazon