Engraved Stone Dating Back 30,000 Years Found in China

Sci-news ^ | Saturday, December 1, 2012 | Sergio Prostak

[SunkenCiv]

Prof Xing Gao of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, co-author of the paper, said: “Shuidonggou site includes 12 localities, ranging in date from Early Late to Late Paleolithic. The engraved stone artifact was found at Locality 1, which is about 30,000 years old.”

Dr Peng added: “we used a digital microscope to observe all the incisions, obtaining many 3D images. After excluding the possibility of natural cracking, trampling and animal-induced damage, and unintentional human by-products, we believe that the incisions were made by intentional behavior. Although we cannot be sure of the function of these incisions, the straight shape of each line shows that it was incised once over a short time interval without repeated cutting, implying the possibility of counting or recording at that time.”

“Furthermore, creation of such an engraved object may indicate the possible existence of complex communicative systems such as language,” he said.

“In addition to the engraved stone artifact, one ostrich egg bead was unearthed from Locality 1. The lithic assemblage of this locality includes blade production and elongated tool blanks. The blade technology was probably introduced from the Altai region of Russian Siberia, according to comparison between lithic assemblages. The flake technology is typical of the Late Paleolithic in north China.

[muawiyah]

Rune alphabets are relatively recent ~ this rock carving is many times older than the oldest rune.

[Graewoulf]

Did the pre-Viking Arctic Red Earth People use the Runic Language?

___________

Thanks for the quick turn around on providing an excellent reference sheet on Runes!

[Rebel_Ace]

"....How on Earth can they determine the age of the carvings without a reference point?"

Actually, there would be two datapoints to look at with the carved rock.

(1) You could measure the external "oxidation" or other weathering effects on the UNCARVED area of the rock.

(2) You then measure the "oxidation" or other weathering effects on the CARVED area of the rock, and compare the two.

Since the carvings on the rock must be younger than the rock itself, the carvings would expose FRESH, UNWEATHERED rock to begin "oxidizing", you should be able to see what the difference is, and from other chemical experimental data, give an educated estimate for the time it would take to deposit that much weathering on the carved surfaces.

A real world example might be an old home with wooden trim that has been painted many times by previous occupants.

You see some wooden moulding with deep gouges in it. On the major surfaces of the wood, you strip away 8 layers of paint. In the areas with the gouges, you strip away only 3 layers of paint.

From data you gather elsewhere, you have learned that the average family repaints a room every 15 years.

3 Layers of paint in the gouges means that a 45-60 year guess for when the gouges occurred is reasonable, and backed up by testable evidence.

[muawiyah]

no idea, but 30,000 years ago is about 28,000 years before any of the rune alphabets. Rune alphabets are merely variations on earlier alphabets, but the oldest alphabet doesn't get a start until about 3900 years ago, which makes even it a good 26,100 years later than this rock.

The markings should not be understood as part of an alphabet ~ rather, they are just markings ~ and that's the important part ~ they aren't accidental as far as anyone can tell.

[Bernard Marx]

Dating rocks can be a little tricky.

Yeah, I used to date one and I took my lumps. Seriously, what's to say the carved stone relates to other artifacts at the site? Unless there were associations that can definitely place it at 30K it's entirely possible it was left there much later than postulated. Sites that yielded knappable quartz minerals were popular with tool and point-makers during the entire stone age and drew many different visitors over long time periods.

[Chode]

i was always told the one next to the Z meant Life...

[wizkid]

Yes, there is good reason to be a bit skeptical on the dating.

In China and Japan where the majority populations usurped civilizations that predated them. There are strong social/cultural/political reasons to distort facts/dates.

Even the most transparent frauds are often go on for years, take the case of Shiniichi Fujimura in Japan:

Japanese paleolithic hoax


Of course, the West has its own biases that have led to the same type of thing on our end too, such as the Piltdown Man.

[Conservative4Ever]

Bread
milk
eggs
beer

[BunnySlippers]

Awesome!

[EEGator]

Isn’t Cuneiform around 5000 years old?

[moose07]

Not able to locate that translation, but it just should do shouldn't it! :)

[SunkenCiv]

More like ogham markings, but the excavator looks like he’s onto something with the idea that someone was keeping track of something (days, rains, something). OTOH, Ciexyz may be onto something, despite the lack of metal at that time.

[Revolting cat!]

Heretic! It’s 24,000!

No, not really, hold the lighter bfore you step to the stake. I used to know the age of the earth to the year (something around 6,245, with an October birthday), but I forgot and am unable to locate the scientific sources, so if you have them, please show us the links.

[TheBattman]

Im still trying to figure out how they dated the rock...

[Revolting cat!]

Don’t they have age rings?

[Graewoulf]

” - - - this artifact is made of siliceous limestone - - - “

This lithology will be softer than a marker that is pure chert (flint), or a marker that is pure quartz. All of these potential markers are commonly found associated with silicious limestone.

The relatively uniform width of the markings is consistent with a marking tool that does not wear significantly from start to finish of a marking, or marking to marking. Thus, the marking tool has a hardness greater than a limestone with up to 99.999 % Silica.

The small size of the marked stone could have been easily carried in the hand of the individual.

Uses, without more information on the wear patterns of the rock, are best treated as speculations.

BTW, why did it take 32 years for the Chinese to get around to publishing this paper?

BTW, BTW, what is the stratigraphic, weathered rind, or “other” evidence that the 30KYBP dating is based upon?

[Sacajaweau]

Looks like something was dragged across the rock. I think you have to know the total surroundings to even make a wild guess.

[Sacajaweau]

This rock only 2.7 inches long....suitable for holding in the hand...but purpose?? I see none...still think drag marks

[Chode]

i don't remember where i saw it/was told(long time ago) but the upright one was life and the upside down one was death

like i said, it was a long time ago

[Revolting cat!]

In the future we’ll be implanting cheeps into rocks, like we currently implant into dogs and cats, to hold and collect (not necessarily in that order) data for use by future generations of scientists.