From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago

Ignacio de la Torre, Luc Doyon, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Rafael Mora,
Ipyana Mwakyoma, Jackson K. Njau, Renata F. Peters, Angeliki
Theodoropoulou & Francesco drCOErrico

Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology
occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary line2. Conversely,
osseous technologies are apparently exclusive of later hominins from approximately 2 million years ago (Ma)3,4, whereas the earliest
systematic production of bone tools is currently restricted to European Acheulean sites 400rCo250 thousand years ago5,6. Here we document an assemblage of bone tools shaped by knapping found within a single stratigraphic horizon at Olduvai Gorge dated to 1.5rCeMa. Large mammal
limb bone fragments, mostly from hippopotamus and elephant, were shaped
to produce various tools, including massive elongated implements. Before
our discovery, bone artefact production in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was widely considered as episodic, expedient and
unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits. However, our results
demonstrate that at the transition between the Oldowan and the early Acheulean, East African hominins developed an original cultural
innovation that entailed a transfer and adaptation of knapping skills
from stone to bone. By producing technologically and morphologically standardized bone tools, early Acheulean toolmakers unravelled
technological repertoires that were previously thought to have appeared routinely more than 1 million years later.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 6.3.2025. 17:40, erik simpson wrote:

Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago

Ignacio de la Torre, Luc Doyon, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Rafael Mora,
Ipyana Mwakyoma, Jackson K. Njau, Renata F. Peters, Angeliki
Theodoropoulou & Francesco drCOErrico

Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary line2. Conversely,
osseous technologies are apparently exclusive of later hominins from approximately 2 million years ago (Ma)3,4, whereas the earliest
systematic production of bone tools is currently restricted to European Acheulean sites 400rCo250 thousand years ago5,6. Here we document an assemblage of bone tools shaped by knapping found within a single stratigraphic horizon at Olduvai Gorge dated to 1.5rCeMa. Large mammal
limb bone fragments, mostly from hippopotamus and elephant, were shaped
to produce various tools, including massive elongated implements. Before
our discovery, bone artefact production in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was widely considered as episodic, expedient and
unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits. However, our results
demonstrate that at the transition between the Oldowan and the early Acheulean, East African hominins developed an original cultural
innovation that entailed a transfer and adaptation of knapping skills
from stone to bone. By producing technologically and morphologically standardized bone tools, early Acheulean toolmakers unravelled
technological repertoires that were previously thought to have appeared routinely more than 1 million years later.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access

So, did those who were persuading us into thinking that this was
episodic, apologize? Or should we encounter misconceptions like this
over and over again, just because this is "science", and science doesn't think.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 3/6/25 11:40 AM, erik simpson wrote:

Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary

I disagree. There is evidence but there's evidence for humans in North
America more than 20,000 years ago. Not good evidence but evidence.

PLUS, 1.5 million years old is YOUNGER than erectus, never mind Homo...

Until there's an actual survey of potential sites OUTSIDE of Africa,
all we're looking at here is a selection bias. And that's a lot of
things but "Science" isn't one of them.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

erik simpson wrote:

Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access

Thanks for finding this!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

On 6.3.2025. 17:40, erik simpson wrote:

Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago

Ignacio de la Torre, Luc Doyon, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Rafael Mora,
Ipyana Mwakyoma, Jackson K. Njau, Renata F. Peters, Angeliki
Theodoropoulou & Francesco drCOErrico

Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology
occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially
be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary line2. Conversely,
osseous technologies are apparently exclusive of later hominins from
approximately 2 million years ago (Ma)3,4, whereas the earliest
systematic production of bone tools is currently restricted to
European Acheulean sites 400rCo250 thousand years ago5,6. Here we
document an assemblage of bone tools shaped by knapping found within a
single stratigraphic horizon at Olduvai Gorge dated to 1.5rCeMa. Large
mammal limb bone fragments, mostly from hippopotamus and elephant,
were shaped to produce various tools, including massive elongated
implements. Before our discovery, bone artefact production in
pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was widely considered as
episodic, expedient and unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits.
However, our results demonstrate that at the transition between the
Oldowan and the early Acheulean, East African hominins developed an
original cultural innovation that entailed a transfer and adaptation
of knapping skills from stone to bone. By producing technologically
and morphologically standardized bone tools, early Acheulean
toolmakers unravelled technological repertoires that were previously
thought to have appeared routinely more than 1 million years later.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, did those who were persuading us into thinking that this was episodic, apologize? Or should we encounter misconceptions like this over and over again, just because this is "science", and science doesn't think.

The conclusion that this used to be considered episodic
was based on the previous body of evidence. But as the
authors above state

"Before our discovery, bone artefact production
in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was
widely considered as episodic, expedient and
unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits."

New finds, paradigms change
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 3/9/25 12:49 AM, Primum Sapienti wrote:

New finds, paradigms change

So the typical selection/preservation/sample bias.

Set this along side 2 million plus year old tools in China
and the story unraveling is.... ????
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 9.3.2025. 6:49, Primum Sapienti wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

On 6.3.2025. 17:40, erik simpson wrote:

Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago

Ignacio de la Torre, Luc Doyon, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Rafael Mora,
Ipyana Mwakyoma, Jackson K. Njau, Renata F. Peters, Angeliki
Theodoropoulou & Francesco drCOErrico

Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology
occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially
be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary line2. Conversely,
osseous technologies are apparently exclusive of later hominins from
approximately 2 million years ago (Ma)3,4, whereas the earliest
systematic production of bone tools is currently restricted to
European Acheulean sites 400rCo250 thousand years ago5,6. Here we
document an assemblage of bone tools shaped by knapping found within
a single stratigraphic horizon at Olduvai Gorge dated to 1.5rCeMa.
Large mammal limb bone fragments, mostly from hippopotamus and
elephant, were shaped to produce various tools, including massive
elongated implements. Before our discovery, bone artefact production
in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was widely considered as
episodic, expedient and unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits.
However, our results demonstrate that at the transition between the
Oldowan and the early Acheulean, East African hominins developed an
original cultural innovation that entailed a transfer and adaptation
of knapping skills from stone to bone. By producing technologically
and morphologically standardized bone tools, early Acheulean
toolmakers unravelled technological repertoires that were previously
thought to have appeared routinely more than 1 million years later.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, did those who were persuading us into thinking that this
was episodic, apologize? Or should we encounter misconceptions like
this over and over again, just because this is "science", and science
doesn't think.

The conclusion that this used to be considered episodic
was based on the previous body of evidence. But as the
authors above state

"Before our discovery, bone artefact production
in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was
widely considered as episodic, expedient and
unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits."

New finds, paradigms change

This isn't the only evidence that we have about past, we have a lot of
evidence. The problem is in the wrong interpretation of evidence, which
is obvious. The interpretation of our raised forehead was that this gave
us intelligence. The interpretation of humans and animals was that
humans are intelligent, and animals aren't. A mountain of wrong interpretations, over and over again. There is no excuse for wrong interpretation, being so wrong is stupid there is no way around it. How
come I had the right interpretation?
See, they willingly choose to neglect some evidence. For example, they
find 1.5 million old peach endocarp in China, which is identical to
today's peach endocarp. Every plant changes when domesticated. This
evidence says that people domesticated peaches at least 1.5 mya. They
find ungulate tracks going parallel to lake margin 1.5 my old. The only interpretation can be that those ungulates were herd by humans. But
scientists neglect this crucial evidence without blinking an eye just
like that, and continue to support the idea that large brain gives you intelligence, despite the fact that they found intelligent human species
with small brains. This all is a sea of stupidity. Wrong interpretation
after wrong interpretation, massive negligence of crucial evidence.
Recently a paper came out, which talks about human footprints. They do
mention Laetoli footprints, they do mention 1.5 old human footprints
(Koobi Fora), but not a single word about the most important of them
all, the Trachilos footprints. And there is always some excuse for this. Somebody is messing big time with this science, this foul behavior has
to be addressed, instead we constantly have excuses for such behavior.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 3/9/25 6:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a This isn't the only evidence that we have about past, we have a
lot of evidence. The problem is in the wrong interpretation of evidence, which is obvious.

A huge problem with the fraud that is paleo anthropology is that, like
the defense of a guilty murderer, they show you (and demand that you
look) at everything in isolation.

"Omg! Ten million guns of that caliber are in the United States, that we
know of! NOTHING ties the murder to this particular gun! So it was
fired recently? So what? Gun owners are supposed to fire their guns as
often as they can. It's called PRACTICE and they're supposed to be as proficient as possible! He said he hadn't fired it? EXACTLY! Someone
whose constantly practicing with their gun really isn't keeping track
of when they're fire in. It's like cleaning the dishes or filing
something at work -- one day bleeds into another. You can never remember
when exactly you did that thing or talked to that friend, but you know
you did. The bullet? Is that some kind of joke? Do you have any idea
how many MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of bullets that manufacturer produces?
Many police forces use that brand. Is the prosecution telling you that
a police officer murdered the victim? Why not? Same caliber gun, exact
same ammunition and they're practicing all the time, firing their guns."

#1. You need a model.

A hypothesis explains the evidence. Not "A" piece of evidence but all
of it. And Out of Africa purity nonsense can't do this. Which is why
it is CONSTANTLY pretending that new evidence "rewrites the book" only
the book is never rewritten.

#2. You need predictions.

A fake science like paleo anthropology does the opposite: It finds
things and then shoehorns them into the pre existing conclusion. There
are no predictions to be tested, nothing that can falsify the dogma.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2