Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - Stone Tool Manufacture in China, 40-50,000 Before 'Creation Week'.

Refuting Creationism

Stone Tool Manufacture In China, 40-50,000 Before 'Creation Week'.

Quina technology was found in Europe decades ago but has never before been found in East Asia.

Ben Marwick

Discovery of Quina technology challenges view of ancient human development in East Asia | UW News

What may present a fascinating puzzle for science often deals a fatal blow to creationism — if only its adherents would acknowledge it. However, creationism remains a "brain-dead zombie", artificially kept alive by the manoeuvres of creationist leaders whose power and income rely upon it.

For instance, the recent discovery in China of stone tools exhibiting 'Quina technology', typically associated with Neanderthals, raises intriguing questions for archaeologists and anthropologists. Neanderthals were previously thought to have inhabited primarily western Eurasia, yet these Chinese artefacts, dated to between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, suggest their influence or presence extended much farther east than previously known. These findings pose fascinating questions regarding ancient human migration and technological exchange.

However, these same discoveries directly contradict creationist beliefs that the Earth is merely 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that humans appeared through a special creation without ancestral links. While science thrives on unanswered questions and continuously adapts its theories based on new evidence, creationism relies rigidly on dogma. When its foundational claims are refuted, the entire belief system crumbles. Religion insists upon unreasonable certainty, whereas science flourishes through reasonable uncertainty.

The discovery of this evidence of Quina Technology was made at the Longtan archaeological site in southwest China by an international group of archaeologists, which included Professor Ben Marwick of Washington University, USA. It is first such discovery in Asia of a technology known to have existed in Middle Palaeolothic Europe and associated there with Neanderthals.

The question is, does this show that Neanderthals were more widespread than we thought, or has their technology been shared with other hominins such as the Denisovans? Or did the same technology arise independently in China?

What is Quina Technology, and how was the Longtan archaeological site in China, where evidence of Quina Technology has been found, dated?

Quina technology refers to a distinctive stone tool-making technique associated primarily with Neanderthal populations during the Middle Palaeolithic period, approximately 300,000 to 40,000 years ago. This method is characterized by the production of thick, asymmetrical scrapers featuring steep, stepped ("scaled") retouching, resulting in durable tools with sharp working edges. These scrapers were predominantly used for processing animal hides, meat, and wood, supporting the subsistence activities of mobile hunter-gatherer groups in cool, dry climates.

The Longtan archaeological site, located in southwest China's Yunnan Province, has yielded evidence of a complete Quina technological system. This discovery challenges the previously held notion that such sophisticated tool-making methods were exclusive to Europe and the Middle East. The artifacts at Longtan include 53 Quina scrapers among 3,487 stone items excavated between 2019 and 2020.

To determine the age of the Longtan site, researchers employed optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating. This technique measures the last time sediment grains were exposed to sunlight, providing an estimate of when they were buried. The OSL dating results indicate that the cultural layers containing the Quina artifacts date back approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years.

This finding not only extends the known range of Quina technology but also suggests a more complex narrative of technological development and hominin interaction in East Asia during the Late Pleistocene. The presence of such tools in China raises questions about potential cultural exchanges or independent innovation among ancient human populations in the region.

Is Quina the same as Mousterian?

Quina is considered a specific subtype or variant of Mousterian technology, not entirely synonymous with it.

Clarification:

Mousterian technology broadly refers to the stone tool industry primarily associated with Neanderthals during the Middle Palaeolithic (~300,000 to 40,000 years ago).
Mousterian tools include a variety of forms such as scrapers, points, and denticulates, made using the Levallois and other flaking techniques.

Quina technology specifically refers to a variant within Mousterian industries, distinguished by a particular technique of retouch called Quina retouch, resulting in thick, robust, asymmetrical scrapers with steep, scaled edges. These tools were particularly suited for heavy-duty tasks such as processing animal hides.

In summary:

Quina technology is a specialised form of Mousterian technology, defined by a distinctive style of retouch and scraper shape, rather than being identical to Mousterian as a whole.

ChatGPT4.5 [Response to user request]
Retrieved from https://chatgpt.com/

Information Continually updated

The team's findings are published in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and are explained in a Washington University news item by Lauren Kirschman:

Discovery of Quina technology challenges view of ancient human development in East Asia
While the Middle Paleolithic period is viewed as a dynamic time in European and African history, it is commonly considered a static period in East Asia. New research from the University of Washington challenges that perception.
Researchers discovered a complete Quina technological system — a method for making a set of tools — in the Longtan site in southwest China, which has been dated to about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. Quina technology was found in Europe decades ago but has never before been found in East Asia.

The team published its findings March 31 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is a big upset to the way we think about that part of the world in that period of time. It really raises the question of, what else were people doing during this period that we haven’t found yet? How is this going to change how we think about people and human evolution in this area?

Professor Ben Marwick, co-author.
Department of Anthropology
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA>

The Middle Paleolithic, or Middle Stone Age, occurred about 300,000 to 40,000 years ago and is considered a crucial time in human evolution. The period is associated with the origin and evolution of modern humans in Africa. In Eurasia, it’s linked to the development of several archaic human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. However, there is a widely held belief that development in China was sluggish during most of the Paleolithic.

The Quina system identified in China has been dated to 55,000 years ago, which is in the same period as European finds. This disputes the idea that the Middle Paleolithic was stagnant in the region and deepens the understanding of Homo sapiens, Denisovans and possibly other hominins.

The most distinctive part of the Quina system is the scraper — a stone tool that is typically thick and asymmetrical with a broad and sharp working edge that has clear signs of use and resharpening. Researchers found several of these, as well as the byproducts of their manufacture. Tiny scratches and chips on the tools indicate they were used for scraping and scratching bones, antlers or wood.

Marwick said the question now becomes: how did this toolkit arrive in East Asia? Researchers will work to determine whether there is a direct connection — people moving gradually from west to east — or if the technology was invented independently with no direct contact between groups.

It will help if researchers can find an archaeological site with a deep set of layers, Marwick said, so they can see what tools developed before the appearance of Quina technology.

We can try to see if they were doing something similar beforehand that Quina seemed to evolve out of. Then we might say that development seems to be more local — they were experimenting with different forms in previous generations, and they finally perfected it. Alternatively, if Quina appears without any sign of experimentation, that suggests this was transmitted from another group.

Professor Ben Marwick.

There are likely several reasons why Quina technology has just now been found in East Asia. One factor, Marwick said, is that archaeologists working in China are learning more about archaeology in other parts of the world and how to recognize their findings. He said the pace of research is also increasing, which means archaeologists are more likely to find rarer artifacts.

The idea that nothing has changed for such a long time in East Asia also has a tight grip on people. They haven’t been considering the possibility of finding things that challenge that. Now maybe there are some scholars who are interested in questioning those ideas.

Professor Ben Marwick.

Much of archaeological discovery relies on luck, Marwick said, but one goal for the future is to uncover human remains in the area.

That could answer the question of whether these tools are the product of a modern human like you and me. There have never been any Neanderthals found in East Asia, but could we find a Neanderthal? Or, more likely, could we find a Denisovan, which is another kind of human ancestor? If we can find the human remains associated with this period, we might find something surprising — maybe even a new human ancestor that we don’t know about yet.

Professor Ben Marwick.

Other co-authors were Qi-Jun Ruan, Hao L, Pei-Yuan Xiao, Ke-Liang Zhao, Zhen-Xiu Jia and Fa-Hu Chen of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; Bo Li of the University of Wollongong in Australia, Hélène Monod of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Spain; Alexander Sumner of DePaul University; Jian-Hui Liu of the Yunnan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology; Chun-Xin Wang and An-Chuan Fan of the University of Science and Technology of China; Marie-Hélène Moncel of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris; Marco Peresani and Davide Delpiano of the University of Ferrara in Italy; and You-Ping Wang of Peking University in Beijing.

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

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.

Advertisement

Amazon