Translate

Guide to Patagonia's Monsters & Mysterious beings

I have written a book on this intriguing subject which has just been published.
In this blog I will post excerpts and other interesting texts on this fascinating subject.

Austin Whittall


Showing posts with label erectus in china. Show all posts
Showing posts with label erectus in china. Show all posts

Friday, July 17, 2026

Duration of the Out Of Africa Migration, it was much slower than believed


Reading a paper about the peopling of Sundaland by Homo erectus (Husson et al., 2022, Javanese Homo erectus on the move in SE Asia circa 1.8 Ma, I learned something about the time it took these ancient hominins to people this southeastern part of Asia, and it was much longer than I expected.


The authors report that " H. erectus reached Java and dwelled at Sangiran, Java, ca. 1.8 Ma.... The dispersal of H. erectus across Sundaland occurred over at least tens to hundreds kyr."


Migration pathways of H. erectus across Sundaland during Early Pleistocene. (a) Reconstructed landscape ca. 1.8 Ma (model goSPL32). The underlying physiography, with overprinted modeled rivers, converts into a map of resistance to displacement that serves to compute the migration pathways, either using a least-cost path algorithm shown for the Myanmar entry point (purple), or a mechanistic movement model (SiMRiv30) exemplified for the Vietnam entry point (orange). Blue star locates the Thailand entry point.. Husson et al., 2022

The map above shows how different the landscape was around 1.8 million years ago, with an emerged area spanning not only the Indonesian islands but also a land bridge from Vietnam into Sundaland, separating the seas of China and Thailand. It also depicts in orange and purple, possible entry routes from the mainland Asian area to Sanigran in Indonesia.


The time spent walking


The point they studied is how long did the trek of these erectus people take. After all, there are remains in China and also in Georgia, at the Dmanisi site, around 1.9 to 2 million years old, and the Indonesian remains are just 100,000 years younger. Let's see what the authors say (my comments are underlined) and I highlight some relevant parts:


" How long did the journey take? While least-cost paths are 6,000 km long on average from mainland Asia to Java (Fig. 4a), the mean travelled distances are 50 times longer for Markovian walks (327 x 103km), regardless of the north entry point, and almost always in excess of 100 x 103 km. The corresponding time span depends on the migration speed. Estimates are available for more recent palaeolithic hominins, ranging from 1 to 10 km/yr [I will comment on this point further down]. At similar speeds, the least-cost paths convert into an optimal travel time of 0.6 to 6 kyr, which is thus the minimal time to cross Sundaland. Markovian walks imply much longer durations before hominins reached Java, between 25-40 kyr at fast moving rates, and 250-400 kyr at slow moving rates (Fig. 4b). These relatively long delays at average or slow moving rates are difficult to reconcile with the early arrival to Java ca. 1.8 Ma, following departure from Georgia or China only a few 100 kyr before. We suggest that because these characteristic travel times scale with the characteristic time scale of changes of the physical environment, external forcings impelled hominins to migrate and boosted their displacement.... We find that H. erectus migrated across Sundaland at remarkably fast rates (>10 km/yr) with respect to their prior journey across Eurasia, and to the displacement rates of other lineages of the genus Homo"


In other words, they estimate that the joureny could take between 25,000 and 400,000 years, to move from northern Thailand or Vietnam to Sanigran in Indonesia. And say that the erectus people walked faster than that because there were external forces pushing them forward (?).


They adopt a quicker pace to fit the timeline of not more than 100,000 years between the oldest Asian specimens in China and Georgia, and those found in Indonesia. So, the authors suggest a slow pace across Asia from Georgia to East Asia, and then a very quick entry into Indonesia.


The paper assumes a speed of 10 km per year for Homo erectus which is the speed at which the fastest "recent palaeolithic hominins" move at (see further up, where it places that speed at 1 to 10 km/y). In my opion, this is quick.


So, just taking straight lines as a course (this would assume the travelers knew in advance where they were going, which they didn't), the distance however from northern Thailand to Java is roughly 3,000 km (2,000 miles). Which they. Taking figure 4b in the paper, at 10 km per year this journey would have required between 7 and 62 ky, on average 32 ky. If these people would have moved at the slower limit found in more recent palaeolithic hominins, they would have required 320 ky to do so (70 to 620 ky).


Interestingly, the modern humans of the Out Of Africa wave are said to have trekked from the Sinai (starting 60 kya) to Beringia in only 40,000 years. That is a much longer distance (10,700 km - 6,700 mi) than the one into Sunda from northern Thailand. So, moving at the pace of the erectus that peopled Sunda, to cover this distance that is 3 times longer, it would have taken almost 100 ky on average. So if they set out 60 kya, they still haven't arrived in America! And walking at the lowere speed limit, it would have taken 1 million years.


Something is wrong in the dispersal speeds.


The paper seems to understand this implication, because it ends with an interesting conclusion: "At a more general scale, our TCN ages obtained for the first appearance datum of H. erectus in Sangiran advocate for an early peopling of Sundaland by H. erectus, contemporary with their Chinese and Georgian counterparts, whose endocranial capacity was much smaller than specimens from Sangiran. These results reignite the long-standing controversy over the origin and dispersal pathways of archaic humans and invites a reexamination of the out-of-Africa paradigm, which provides a global roadmap for the dispersal of the genus Homo, but which one-way direction may be questioned."


Directionality suggests Asia-To-Africa migrations, and the smaller-brain sizes of contemporary erectus in China and Georgia vs. Indonesia requires some explanation. Why would the more advanced erectus be those most distant from Africa, in Sangiran?



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Sunday, March 1, 2026

Homo erectus reached China 600 ky earlier than previously believed


Continuning with this series of posts on new findings in Asia, a paper published on February 18, 2026 (Hua Tu et al. (2026). The oldest in situ Homo erectus crania in eastern Asia: The Yunxian site dates to ~1.77 Ma. Sci. Adv. 12, eady2270. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.ady2270) reports that three skulls belonging to Homo erectus recovered from Yunxian, China were dated to an age of 1.77 million years. This is roughly 600,000 years older than previous estimates.


This new dating is very relevant because it shows a rapid expansion of these hominids across Asia: The oldest remains of erectus are found in Georgia (the Dmanisi site) and are 1.78 to 1.85 Ma. The remains from Indonesia are younger, for instance those from Sanigran are 1.5 to 1.66 Ma., and the age assigned to Chinese remains is close to 1.3 Ma.


Interestingly, this paper mentions two sites in China older than 2.1 million years: "Further, the earliest archaeological traces, as represented by Xihoudu [~2.4 Ma;] and Shangchen [~2.1 Ma]." This could imply a very early out of Africa migration of austraolpithecines perhaps! (see my post on erectus and australopiths in Dmanisi, Georgia).


Yunxian site is on the Han River, in Central China. The paper concludes that:


"The age for Yunxian also indicates that H. erectus at ~1.77 Ma was much more widespread than just Dmanisi in Georgia, although the latter site, at the top of the Olduvai subchron (1.78 to 1.85 Ma), should be slightly older. This supports a rapid dispersal model of H. erectus through Asia beginning after 2 Ma. As the dates for these hominin sites continue to be pushed back in time, it would suggest that the chronological gap between the earliest archaeology at sites like Xihoudu [~2.43 Ma] and Shangchen [~2.1 Ma] and hominin paleontology in China is quickly narrowing. Questions remain, however, as to when and where H. erectus initially appeared and could they have been among the earliest occupants at some of these sites in China and elsewhere that now date to the early Early Pleistocene. If not, then should we be considering alternative hominins as the possible earliest occupants of Asia, particularly because the earliest sites in Asia now predate the traditionally accepted appearance of Homo ergaster/H. erectus (~1.9 Ma). The dates for Yunxian presented here represent a step forward to addressing such questions."


An earlier presence of Homo or australopithecines in East Asia opens the door to a continued migration into America 1.7 to 2.1 million years ago.


The two older sites ~2 Ma


The two sites mentioned further up, over two million years old are linked to the following sources:


G. J. Shen, Y. R. Wang, H. Tu, H. W. Tong, Z. K. Wu, K. Kuman, D. Fink, D. E. Granger, Isochron 26Al/10Be burial dating of Xihoudu: Evidence for the earliest human settlement in northern China. Anthropologie 124, 102790 (2020).
Z. Zhu, R. Dennell, W. Huang, Y. Wu, S. Qiu, S. Yang, Z. Rao, Y. Hou, J. Xie, J. Han, T. Ouyang, Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago. Nature 559, 608–612 (2018).


I will look into them in a future post, and also, look int the possible origin of the homo group in Asia, instead of Africa.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, February 27, 2026

China is redefining hominin evolution


A paywalled paper published three days ago (Feb. 24, 2026) in Nature (Yang, SX., Martinón-Torres, M. & Petraglia, M. Palaeoanthropological evidence from China is changing the picture of hominin evolutionary history. Nat Ecol Evol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-02983-w) reports on the recent research, datings and findings in China that have upended conventional beliefs about the evolution of our species.


"Abstract
Recent palaeoanthropological discoveries in China indicate that eastern Asia had an important role in the evolutionary history of the genus Homo over the past 2 million years. New taxonomic proposals have been made to re-group archaic human fossils, including those considered to be Denisovans, as Homo juluensis and Homo longi. The hypothesis that the affinities of Yunxian 2, dated to about 1 million years ago, also infer an early divergence of the Homo sapiens lineage further underscores China’s pivotal role in global evolutionary narratives. Here we explore key biological and cultural evidence emerging from the Chinese record and its evolutionary implications, raising questions about the relationships between ‘transitional’ clades and their differing adaptive capabilities. Rather than an evolutionary cul-de-sac, China now appears as a dynamic evolutionary crossroad where multiple Homo lineages may have arisen, interacted and adapted to shifting environments. The growing fossil and genetic evidence point to a diversity of populations whose demographic history and gene flow exchange helped to shape the broader mosaic of our species.
"


In my next two posts I will look into two very papers that report two remarkable findings: an earlier age for the first Out Of Africa event that saw Homo erectus enter Asia (or possibly, even an australopithecine) leave Africa 1.95 million years ago, and also a much older date for erectus' arrival in China. Plus two other papers mentioning sites that are possibly over 2 million years old in China.


I am not a Sinophile, and not because I dislike the Chinese people or their culture, quite the opposite. I have visited China many times before I retired as I worked for several years with companies there, visited customers, traveled the country extensively. I spent vacations there, with my wife, and I also have Chinese friends. I enjoy the food, the rich history, the diverse culture, and its natural sights. I am reluctant to embrace China because I am at odds with the system that governs that great nation. The Chinese Communist party, allied with the People's Liberation Army, is a one-party system that perpetuates a caste, an elite, living in luxury, backed by force that has, for the past 77 years destroyed and ignored the human rights (as we see them with our Western eyes) of its people, jailed opposition, suppressed free press, and supported dictators (like the ones who govern Iran, North Korea, and Russia). Then there are the territorial claims in the South China Sea (Spratly Islands), and its heavy handed attitude with South Korea, and Japan. Add to that the official silence over the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, and how it has gradually eroded the rights agreed upon with Britain for Hong Kong ("One country, two systems", for 50 years) and is slowly but surely imposing its totalitarian views and police-state grip there. The increasingly aggressive stance with Taiwan, the Republic of China, a thriving democracy, is also troubling.


Nevertheless, I am glad that research is uncovering new findings in China. This will help us understand how our ancestors peopled Asia, America, and the interplay between the different branches of hominins.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 
Hits since Sept. 2009:
Copyright © 2009-2025 by Austin Victor Whittall.
Todos los derechos reservados por Austin Whittall para esta edición en idioma español y / o inglés. No se permite la reproducción parcial o total, el almacenamiento, el alquiler, la transmisión o la transformación de este libro, en cualquier forma o por cualquier medio, sea electrónico o mecánico, mediante fotocopias, digitalización u otros métodos, sin el permiso previo y escrito del autor, excepto por un periodista, quien puede tomar cortos pasajes para ser usados en un comentario sobre esta obra para ser publicado en una revista o periódico. Su infracción está penada por las leyes 11.723 y 25.446.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other - except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without prior written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.

Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy before accessing this blog.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

Patagonian Monsters - https://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/