Early hominin dispersal in Eurasia

Evidence from Dmanisi in Georgia that Homo erectus may have been the first advanced hominin to leave Africa about 1.8 Ma ago was a big surprise (see: First out of Africa? November 2003). Remains of five individuals included one skull of an aged person who face was so deformed that he or she must have been cared for by others for many years. So, a second surprise from Dmanisi was that human empathy arose far earlier than most people believed. Since 2002 there has been only a single further find of hominin bones of such antiquity, at Longgudong in central China. For the period between 1.0 and 2.0 Ma eight other sites in Eurasia have yielded hominin remains. If finds of stone tools and evidence of deliberate butchery – cut marks on prey animals’ bones – are accepted as tell-tale signs, the Eurasian hominin record is considerably larger, and longer,. There are 11 Eurasian sites that have yielded such evidence – but no hominin remains – that are older than Longgudong: in Russia, China, the Middle East, North Africa and northern India. The oldest, at Masol in northern India is 2.6 Ma old. In January 2025 the earliest European evidence for hominin activity was reported from Grăunceanu in Romania (Curran, S.C. and 15 others 2025. Hominin presence in Eurasia by at least 1.95 million years ago. Nature Communications, v. 16, article 836; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56154-9) in the form of animal bones showing clear signs of butchery, as well as stone tools, but no hominin fossils.

Animal bones showing cut marks from the 1.95 Ma old Grăunceanu site in Romania. (Credit: Curran et al. 2025, Figs 2A and C)

There were stone-tool makers who butchered prey in Africa as early as 3.4 Ma ago (see: Stone tools go even further back; May 2015), but without direct evidence of which hominin was involved. Several possible candidates have been suggested: Australopithecus; Kenyanthropus; Paranthropus. The earliest known African remains of H. erectus have been dated at around 2.0 Ma. So, all that can be said with some certainty about the pre-2 Ma migrants to Eurasia, until fossils of that antiquity are found, is that they were hominins of some kind: maybe advanced australopithecines, paranthropoids or early humans. Those from Longgudong and Dmanisi probably are early Homo erectus, and 2 others (1.7 and 1.6 Ma) from China have been designated similarly. Younger, pre-1.0 Ma Eurasian hominins from Israel, Indonesia, Spain and Turkey are currently un-named at the species level, but are allegedly members of the genus Homo.

So, what can be teased from the early Eurasian hominin finds? Some certainly travelled thousands of kilometres from their assumed origins in Africa, but none penetrated further north than about 50°N. Perhaps they could not cope with winters at higher latitudes, especially during ice ages. To reach as far as eastern and western Eurasia suggests that dispersal following exit from Africa would have taken many generations. There is no reason to suppose continual travel; rather the reverse, staying put in areas with abundant resources while they remained available, and then moving on when they became scarce. Climate cycles, first paced at around 40 ka (early Pleistocene) then at around 100 ka (mid Pleistocene and later), would have been the main drivers for hominin population movements, as it would have been for game and vegetation.

After about 3 Ma the 40 ka climate cyclicity evolved to greater differences in global temperature between glacial and interglacial episodes, and even more so after the mid Pleistocene transition to 100 ka cycles (see Wikipedia entry for the mid-Pleistocene Transition). Thus, it seems likely that chances of survival of dispersed bands of hominins decreased over hundreds of millennia. Could populations have survived in particularly favourable areas; i.e. those at low latitudes? If so did both culture and the hominins themselves evolve? Alternatively, was migration in a series of pulses out of Africa and then dispersal in all directions, most ending in regional extinction? Almost certainly, pressures to leave Africa would have been driven by climate, for instance by increased aridity as global temperatures waned and sea-level falls made travel to Eurasia easier. There may also have been secondary, shorter migrations within Eurasia, again driven by environmental changes. Without more data from newly discovered sites we can go little further. Within the 35 known, pre-1 Ma hominin sites there are two clusters: southern and central China, and the Levant, Turkey and Georgia. Could they yield more developments? A 2016 article in Scientific American about Chinese H. erectus finds makes particularly interesting reading in this regard.

Neanderthals and the elusive Denisovans began to establish permanent Eurasian ranges, after roughly 600 ka ago. Both groups survived until after first contact with waves of anatomically modern humans in the last 100 ka, with whom some interbred before vanishing from the record. However, evidence from the DNA of both groups suggests an interesting possibility. Before the two groups split genetically, their common ancestors (H. heidelbergensis or H. antecessor?) apparently interbred with genetically more ancient Eurasian hominins (see Wikipedia entry for Neanderthal evolution). This intriguing hint suggests that more may be discovered when substantial remains of Denisovans – i.e. more than a few teeth and small bones – are discovered and yield more DNA. My guess is such a future development will stem from analysis of early hominin remains in China, currently regarded as H. erectus. See China discovers landmark human evolution fossils. Xinhua News Agency 9 December 2024)

A fully revised edition of Steve Drury’s book Stepping Stones: The Making of Our Home World can now be downloaded as a free eBook

How India accelerated towards Eurasia at the end of the Cretaceous

About 70 Ma ago the magnetic striping of the Indian Ocean floor suggests that the Indian subcontinent was then moving towards the huge, almost stationary Eurasian continent at about 8 cm per year. Over the next 5 Ma this convergence rate underwent a tectonically startling acceleration to reach 18 cm yr-1 by around the time of the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary (65 Ma): more than doubling the approach rate. Thereafter it slowed, eventually to a few centimetres per year once collision and building of the Himalayan mountain belt were more or less complete about 30 Ma ago. This cannot easily be explained by a speeding up of the sea-floor spreading rate at an Indian Ocean ridge to the south, 18 cm yr-1 being as fast as tectonic forces can manage at present. At that time ocean floor to the north of India was being subducted beneath Eurasia, and basaltic volcanism was flooding what is now the Deccan Plateau on western India. A couple of suggestions have been made: two northward subduction zones may have developed or the mantle plume feeding the Deccan flood basalts may have driven the tectonic acceleration. A third possibility is that the subduction was somehow lubricated. That approach has recently been considered by geoscientists from China and Singapore  (Zhou, H. et al. 2024. India–Eurasia convergence speed-up by passive-margin sediment subduction. Nature, v. 635, p. 114-120; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08069-6).

Hao Zhou and colleagues studied the isotopic and trace-element geochemistry of volcanic and plutonic igneous complexes to the north of the Himalaya. They were emplaced in arc environments in three stages: from 98 to 89; 65 to 60; and 57 to 50 Ma. In this tectonic setting fluids rise from the subducted slab to induce the mantle part of the overriding lithosphere to partially melt. That yields magmas which penetrate the crust above. The first and last magmatic events produced similar isotopic and trace-element ‘signatures’, which suggest fluids rose from subducted ocean lithosphere.  But those in the latest Cretaceous to earliest Palaeocene are markedly different. Instead of showing signs of their magmas being entirely mantle derived like the earlier and later groups, the 65 to 60 Ma rocks exhibit clear evidence of partial melting having incorporated materials that had originated in older continental crust. The authors suggest that this crustal contamination stemmed from sediments that had been deposited at the northern margin of the Indian subcontinent during the Mesozoic. These sediments had formed by weathering of the ancient rocks that underpin India, transport of the debris by rivers and deposition on the seafloor as water-saturated sands, silts and clays. Once those sediments were subducted beneath what is now Tibet they would yield fluids with a geochemical ‘fingerprint’ inherited from old continental crust. Moreover, far more fluids than subducted oceanic crust could ever release would rise into the overriding lithosphere than.

The fluids rising from a subducted wedge of sediments may have reduced friction between the overriding Eurasian lithosphere and the subducted slab derived from the Indian tectonic plate. That scenario would not only have lubricated subduction, but allowed compressive forces in the overriding lithosphere to relax. Both would have allowed convergence of the two plates to move significantly faster as the sediments were progressively consumed. Once completed, convergence would have slowed without such ‘lubrication’.Earlier continent-continent collision zones, such as those that united Pangaea and older supercontinents may well have involved such tectonic surges. And the same kind of process may eventually speed up the reassembly of the latest distribution of continents.

Watch an animation of the India-Eurasia convergence (just over 3 minutes long)compiled by Christopher Scotese of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, USA, which is a component of his Paleomap Project. It starts by following India from its current position to its origin in the break-up of Gondwanaland ~100 Ma ago. The last half reverses the motions to show India’s slow collision with Eurasia.