We have all heard about the Out of Africa theory (OOA) that proposes an initial, failed, migration of humans into the Levant, from Africa around 150,000 years ago (150 ky) that died out and left no trace in our modern lineage. Then came the second, and final migration around 50 ky ago which peopled Eurasia, Oceania, and later, America. But, as we will see in this post, this timeline is not so certain.
A paper by Friedline et al., 2023 (Early presence of Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia by 86–68 kyr at Tam Pà Ling, Northern Laos) suggests that humans reached the southeastern side of Asia some 68,000 years ago.
The authors analyzed bone remains from Tam Pà Ling (TPL for short), and concluded that one of the specimens (known as TPL 6), "confirms the presence of H. sapiens by 70 ± 3 kyr, and TPL 7 extends this range to 77 ± 9 kyr, supporting an early dispersal of H. sapiens into Southeast Asia."
This adds evidence of en early presence of humans in the region. Another sites with old dates are the Sumatran one at Lida Ajer, which is around 73 ky old (Westway et al., 2017).
These dates are incompatible with the current OOA theory so how can these remains be fitted into it? The theory should be reevaluated and updated. Were these people survivors from the first "failed" migration? Did they evolve localy? Did they admix with Denisovans or archaics?
The article confirms that human beings lived at TPL for over 56,000 years! Several specimens were analyzed and they show affinities and differences with other humans from Asia.
Some highlighs regarding these people:
- "Geometric morphometric analyses of TPL 6 suggest descent from a gracile immigrant population rather than evolution from or admixture with local archaic populations."
- "The TPL fossils’ clear affinities to H. sapiens suggest that they descended from a gracile H. sapiens population from Africa, the Near East, or locally."
- "considerable shape and size variability is present at Tam Pà Ling... supporting previous observations that high levels of heterogeneity characterize Late Pleistocene modern human groups."
- "TPL 6 and potentially the younger fossils from Tam Pà Ling would represent an unsuccessful dispersal. Whether this dispersal disappeared prior to the main later dispersal or the distinct migrations experienced a period of co-habitation remains unclear with absence of ancient DNA from 50 to 10 kyr."
The analysis of the next oldest remains from the site, TPL, dated to 70 ky, shows that it has "affinities to Pleistocene archaic humans (e.g., non-H. sapiens Middle Pleistocene hominins and Neanderthals from Africa and Eurasia), plotting outside of the range of variation of early and Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens. This is mainly due to its large bi-mental breadth, an archaic feature also found in early H. sapiens and Neanderthals and associated with a wide ramus". An intriguing hint, in my opinion, of admixture with archaics in Euyrasia. The authors point out, however, that it had "a well-developed chin (mental osseum rank 537), a trademark of our species". They also compared TPL to the Chinese fossil Zhiren 3, which is around 100 ky old, and is more archaic, yet also has a prominent chin. The explanation for this feature is admixture of humans with archaics in Asia.
The authors point out the doubts surrounding the age of Zhiren, which could either be "an example of an early dispersal of H. sapiens that was unsuccessful. Alternatively, if the geological age is overestimated it could also be an example of one of the earliest inhabitants from a late dispersal."
Two other specimens, TPL1 and TPL2 are curious; they are 52-40 ky old, but have some oddities. TPL2 is small: 140–153 cm (less than 5 feet tall). TPL1, on the other hand has a roubust skull, with strong brow ridges, jutting lower jaw, which according to the authors "can be generally interpreted as a retention of ancestral morphology rather than admixture with local archaic populations". Why discard admixture with H. erectus or Denisovans? No explanation is given.
The paper concludes "TPL 6... provides direct evidence of an early, possibly unsuccessful, dispersal from Africa or the Near East towards Southeast Asia by 70 ± 3 kyr. TPL 6 is remarkably gracile implying that it descended from a gracile immigrant population and not the outcome of local evolution from, or admixture with, H. erectus or Denisovans. Our semilandmark geometric shape analyses of the other craniomandibular fossils from Tam Pà Ling (TPL 1, 2, and 3) are consistent with previous studies attributing them to H. sapiens, and their considerable shape and size variability suggests that high levels of heterogeneity characterize Late Pleistocene modern human groups."
The TPL6 is gracile, so they interpret it as lacking admixture with archaics. But, why did the other early specimens, TPL 1, 2 & 3, show such high variability, a mix of ancient, robust, and modern features? Doesn't this mosaic of old and modern features hint at admixture?
It seems likely that the first humans reached Southeast Asia much earlier than proposed by the current OOA theory. Their mosaic features hint at admixture with archaics in Asia. Possibly, humans could have originated outside of Africa after splitting from Neanderthal/Denisovans, and spread west into Africa, and east into the domains of the still extant Homo erectus.
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall ©
