A specialized imaging technique reveals mineral layers preserved within a fossilized Melanopsis shell (sample UB1).
Credit: Perach Nuriel
Long before anyone composed the biblical creation stories, early members of our genus were making stone tools and inhabiting the Jordan Valley. Research on the prehistoric site of ‘Ubeidiya, south of the Sea of Galilee, now suggests that this chapter of human history began earlier than previously thought — probably more than 1.9 million years ago. The landscape subsequently woven into biblical tradition preserves a much older history, written in sediments, fossils and archaeological remains.
The research, published in Quaternary Science Reviews brings together cosmogenic burial dating, ancient magnetic signatures and uranium–lead dating of fossil freshwater snail shells. Their combined interpretation favours an older chronology for the site, with implications for when tool-making hominins dispersed beyond Africa.
These inhabitants were not modern Homo sapiens. They were earlier members of our genus, probably associated with the Homo erectus/ergaster group, although the surviving fossils do not justify an unqualified species identification. Their presence, together with the site's Acheulean stone tools, contributes to an increasingly detailed picture of early human expansion into Eurasia.
Perhaps the most instructive feature of the research is how the scientists dealt with conflicting evidence. A simple interpretation of the cosmogenic measurements produced apparent burial ages of about three million years. Rather than accepting those figures at face value, the researchers investigated the sediments' history of burial, exposure, erosion and redeposition. A geological clock can preserve a complicated history; interpreting it requires testing what happened to the material being dated.
The resulting chronology retains uncertainty: the analysis permits two age windows but strongly favours the older one. That qualification is part of the scientific result, not an embarrassment to conceal. Science advances by making its assumptions explicit, comparing different lines of evidence and revising explanations when the evidence demands it.
For young-Earth creationism, meanwhile, neither age window offers a refuge. The debate concerns which part of the early Pleistocene these hominins inhabited, not whether their existence can be squeezed into a few thousand years. Scientists are refining an ancient history from physical evidence; biblical literalism begins with a predetermined chronology and must explain away whatever fails to fit. ‘Ubeidiya offers a particularly clear illustration of the difference.
‘Ubeidiya^ An Ancient Stopping Place on the Routes Out of Africa. Where is it?Publication of the paper in Quaternary Science Reviews was announced in a news item released through the European Friends of The Hebrew University:
‘Ubeidiya is an open-air archaeological site in Israel’s Jordan Valley, approximately three kilometres south of the Sea of Galilee. Discovered in 1959, it preserves stone tools, animal fossils and rare hominin remains within a succession of ancient lake and river deposits. Its importance lies in documenting early members of our genus living beyond Africa, in the Levantine corridor connecting Africa with Eurasia.
A landscape of lakes, rivers and moving ground
When hominins occupied ‘Ubeidiya, the landscape included a freshwater lake, its shores and streams entering it. Changes in water levels and sediment supply produced alternating deposits associated with lake, shoreline, delta and river environments. These layers preserve evidence of changing habitats and repeated hominin presence, rather than a single occupation or depositional event.
The site lies within the tectonically active Dead Sea Transform region. After deposition, movements of the Earth’s crust folded, faulted and tilted the sediments, leaving some beds standing at steep angles. Archaeologists must therefore reconstruct the original sequence of layers instead of assuming that everything now found at the same height belongs to the same period.
There is a further complication: some sediment had already undergone burial and exposure elsewhere before erosion transported it into the ‘Ubeidiya deposits. Dating such material requires distinguishing its earlier geological history from its final burial at the archaeological site.
What did the inhabitants leave behind?
‘Ubeidiya is particularly important for its early Acheulean technology, including large tools shaped on both faces, alongside cores, flakes and other implements. Its animal fossils also help researchers reconstruct the environments and animal communities encountered by these early toolmakers.
The hominin fossils are much scarcer. Some have been provisionally associated with Homo erectus or Homo ergaster, but species identification remains uncertain. A juvenile vertebra described in 2022 was assigned more cautiously to Homo sp. — meaning that it belongs to our genus without a secure species designation. Stone-tool traditions alone cannot establish which species made them.
Why does it matter for dispersal out of Africa?
The Levant forms a geographical bridge between Africa and Eurasia, making ‘Ubeidiya especially valuable for investigating early hominin movements. Its fossils, tools and environmental record allow researchers to ask not merely when hominins were present, but what kinds of habitats they occupied and which technologies they used.
Comparisons with sites such as Dmanisi in Georgia suggest that early Eurasian populations were not necessarily identical in body form, technology or ecology. This supports investigation of multiple dispersals and varied adaptations, rather than a single, uniform migration. Differences between tool assemblages are informative, although they do not by themselves prove separate species or migration waves.
These early movements must also be distinguished from the much later dispersal of Homo sapiens. “Out of Africa” encompasses several episodes in human evolutionary history; ‘Ubeidiya concerns early members of Homo, long before our own species emerged.
How old is the site?
Earlier estimates commonly placed ‘Ubeidiya between about 1.2 and 1.6 million years ago. The 2026 study combines cosmogenic burial dating, palaeomagnetism and uranium–lead dating of fossil snail shells. Its analysis permits two principal age windows — 1.19–1.77 and 1.93–2.14 million years — but strongly favours the older interval. “Probably more than 1.9 million years old” therefore conveys the result more accurately than treating that figure as an unquestionable minimum.
The wider significance: ‘Ubeidiya helps scientists reconstruct the timing, diversity and environmental setting of early human expansion beyond Africa. Revising its age changes the details of that history while illustrating how archaeological explanations are tested against increasingly informative evidence.
Study Finds 1.9 Million Year Out-of-Africa Migration wave leaves its mark in the Jordan Valley
A new study has determined that the archaeological site of ‘Ubeidiya in the Jordan Valley dates back at least 1.9 million years, pushing back evidence of early human presence in the region by hundreds of thousands of years and positioning the ‘Ubeidiya site, together with Dmanisi, Georgia, the oldest evidence of early humans outside of Africa. The discovery revises a critical moment in human evolution, indicating that ancient pioneers, equipped with a diverse array of stone tools, were established in the Levant at the dawn of our species’ global expansion.
A new study led by Prof. Ari Matmon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Prof. Omry Barzilai from the University of Haifa, and Prof. Miriam Belmaker from the University of Tulsa provides a clearer timeline for one of the most significant prehistoric sites worldwide for the study of human evolution. By integrating three advanced dating techniques, researchers have determined that the site of ‘Ubeidiya in the Jordan Valley likely dates back to at least 1.9 million years ago.
This revised age suggests that ‘Ubeidiya is among the oldest known sites of early humans outside of Africa.
The ‘Ubeidiya Formation has long interested researchers because it preserves early evidence of the Acheulean culture, characterized by large bifacial stone tools found in association with rich faunal assemblages, including species of African and Asian origin, some of which are now extinct.
However, establishing the site's exact age has been a challenge for decades. For many years, most researchers estimated that ‘Ubeidiya dated to between 1.2 and 1.6 million years ago but this age was based on relative chronology. To determine the precise age range of ‘Ubeidiya, the team returned to the site and resampled it using a battery of novel dating techniques, each offering a different way of probing the deep past.
One method, known as cosmogenic isotope burial dating, measures rare isotopes created when cosmic rays strike rocks at the Earth’s surface. Once those rocks are buried, the isotopes begin to decay at predictable rates, effectively starting a geological clock that reveals how long they have lain underground.
The scientists also examined traces of Earth’s ancient magnetic field preserved in the site’s lake sediments. As sediments settle, they lock in the direction of the planet’s magnetic field at that moment. By matching these magnetic signatures to known reversals in Earth’s history, the researchers determined that the layers formed during the Matuyama Chron, a period that began more than two million years ago.
Finally, the team analyzed fossilized Melanopsis shells, freshwater snails embedded in the sediment, using uranium-lead dating to establish a minimum age for the layers in which the stone tools were discovered.
Altogether, the results converged on a significantly earlier date than previously assumed.
The findings indicate that the ‘Ubeidiya site is at least one million nine hundred thousand years old, representing a major shift in our understanding of early human history.
This new timeline suggests that ‘Ubeidiya is roughly the same age as the well-acknowledged Dmanisi site in Georgia, which means our ancestors were spreading across different regions at a similar time. It also suggests that two different technologies of making stone tools, the simpler Oldowan tradition and the more advanced Acheulean, migrated at the same time from Africa by the different groups of hominins as they moved into new territories.
The study also addressed a major scientific hurdle: the initial isotope readings suggested the rocks were 3 million years old, which contradicted paleomagnetic, paleontological, geological and archaeological evidence. The researchers addressed this hurdle by demonstrating that the sediments containing human remains have a long history of recycling within the Dead Sea rift and along its margins.
"The exposure-burial history that emerges from the model implies recycling of sediments previously deposited and buried in the rift valley... and then redeposited along the ‘Ubeidiya paleo lake shoreline."
Publication:
‘Ubeidiya illustrates how science builds an increasingly detailed account of the human past. Researchers compare fossils, artefacts and geological evidence, test the assumptions behind their dating methods and revise earlier interpretations when the evidence warrants it. The remaining uncertainty concerns the precise chronology of an ancient occupation, not whether human history can be compressed into the few thousand years permitted by biblical literalism.
Nor does revising a date mean that scientists can make the evidence say whatever they please. The sediments have a physical history, and any satisfactory explanation must account for their burial, exposure, erosion and redeposition, together with the other geological constraints. Recognising that complexity and investigating its consequences is how reliable knowledge develops. Acknowledging uncertainty makes the explanation more honest; it does not make every competing claim equally plausible.
For young-Earth creationism, either of the age windows identified in this study is disastrous. Early members of our genus were making tools and occupying the Jordan Valley more than a million years before the supposed creation of the world. In the very region later incorporated into biblical narratives, the ground preserves evidence of a history vastly older and more complicated than those narratives describe, written as they obviously were, by people who were completely oblivious to the history of the land upon which they walked.
The contrast is therefore straightforward. Science allows evidence to change its account of the past; biblical literalism requires the past to conform to an account fixed in advance. The researchers at ‘Ubeidiya were investigating early human dispersal, not setting out to refute Genesis. As so often happens, the difficulty for creationism arose simply because scientists examined and revealed the evidence.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.