OOA Routes: Sicily Strait (Post 3)

This is the third post in my series on the routes that could have been used by ancestral hominins like Homo erectus and also by Homo sapiens to migrate out of Africa (OOA). In today's post we will look into the Strait of Sicily.

Post 1: Where was the Out of Africa Corridor?
Post 2: OOA Routes: Gibraltar
Post 3: OOA Routes: Strait of Sicily
Post 4: OOA Routes: Sinai
Post 5: OOA Routes: Bab-el-Mandeb

Strait of Sicily

Nowadays this corridor is dismissed and not even mentioned as an option for human migration out of, or into Africa (see Oppenheimer, 2012).

The strait separating Tunisia in Africa, from the island of Sicily, Italy, Europe, is a viable route for migration across the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa into the insular region of Italy, and then, crossing the strait of Messina (~3km - 2 mi) from Northern Sicily, accessing the tip of the Italian "boot" on mainland Europe.

The crossing, now used by illegal migrants into the European Union, is some 145 km wide (90 mi.) Too wide to see Sicily from Africa. However, there are some Italian islands in the strait: Pantelleria 77 km - 48 mi. from Africa and 104 km - 65 mi. from Sicily. It is 135 km (84 mi.) from Tunez to Lampedusa, another 44 km (27 mi.) to Linosa, and 122 km - 75 mi. to Malta and Gozo, from there to Sicily it is 85 km - 52 mi.

This is a wide strait, and would require navigation skills to cross it, with current sea levels. However, sea levels were far lower during the Ice Ages of the past 2 million years, and now submerged continental shelf areas were dry land at that time.

A 100 meter drop (330 feet) in the water level of the Mediterranean would have exposed banks that are now submerged, like the Adventure Bank, or Adventure Plateau, on the southern coast of Sicily, that spans 80,000 km² or 30,090 sq. mi. On this bank is shallow area known as Pantelleria Vecchia (Old Pantelleria) which can be seen in th following map, adapted from Galili, 1981. It shows the coast exposed if sea levels dropped 100 meters (black line).

A submerged 12-meter (36 foot) long megalithic monolith ( an obelisk-like stone slab) was discovered on the seabed at Pantelleria Vecchia, it weighs 15 tons, and now lies under 40 meters (120 feet) of water. This shows that neolithic people lived here when it was emerged land. Lodolo and Ben-Avraham, 2023 note that "seawater inundated the inner lands at 9350 ± 200 year B.P., the upper limit which can be reasonably taken for the site abandonment. This discovery provides evidence for a significant Mesolithic human activity in the Sicilian Channel region."

We know (see Scerri, 2025) that late stone age people crossed from Sicily to Malta some 8,500 years ago in simple boats. But, it could have been accessed on foot, as the continental shelf linking Malta to Sicily was dry land during the Last Glacial Maximum (25 kya). Neanderthal teeth were discovered in the Għar Dalam Cave, in Malta by Despott, and reported by Keith, 1918 (more on Keith further down). However, mainstream scholars say they are more recent, and belong to modern humans. The controversy lives on (read more.

Why cross the sea here?

From the coast of Tunisia, you can spot the volcanic summits of Pantelleria on clear days (see this image), which could have enticed ancient explorers to go there. From Pantelleria it is a short crossing to the then emerged Adventure Bank (36 km - 20 mi.)

Opinions against this corridor

Villa, 2001 summarizes the points against this corridor without completely disregarding it, as follows: "In view of the endemic faunas of the Lower and early Middle Pleistocene, the uncertain context of Lower Paleolithica artifacts, the absence of verifed reports of Mousterian industries in Sicily (Mussi, 1992, p. 288), the absence of human remains before the Upper Paleolithic, and the tectonic history of the island and adjacent areas, we must conclude that Sicily is unlikely to have been an important connecting point between Africa and Italy until the Upper Paleolithic." (highlighting is mine).

The French school of archaeologists was more favorable to this corridor. Henriette Alimen (1900-1996) propsed that Acheulean Africans reached Europe through Gibraltar and the Tunisia-Sicily Strait (Alimen, MH (1975). Les "isthmes" hispano-marocain et siculo-tunisien aux temps acheuléens. L'Anthropologie, 79 (3), pp. 399-436.

Rolland, 1992 is also cautious about "The Siculo- Tunisian landbridge" he regards the pebble tools and the matching Pebble-Culture in the Maghreb as unconfirmed, and notes that Italy's mainland was a narrow and complex geography that was subjected to great changes during the Ice Ages. Furthermore, the Mediterranean and the Alps tended to isolate it. The most likely route for entry into Italy, according to Rolland, was from the east, via the Adriatic and Ionian seas' shelves, as attested by Early Paleolithic sites in that region.

Nevertheless, there is evidence of Acheulean tools, 700,000 years old, from Notarchirico in Southern Italy, see Moncel, 2020, (highlight is mine): "the location of Notarchirico in southern Italy suggests two possible paleogeography-dependent routes: (1) following the northern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea from the Levant during low sea levels in glacial phases, or (2) crossing the Sicily channel between Tunisia and Sicily, also during glacial periods with low sea levels.Given the evidence of probable hominin occupation of insular land masses in the Mediterranean during the Lower Paleolithic (Crete, Gavdos, and Naxos), along withrecent discoveries of evidence of settlement on Indonesian and Philippine Islands east of the Wallace line in Southeast Asia as early as 700 ka, the Sicilian route deserves consideration, in spite of the absence of solid evidence of a land bridge."

The following map, from Depraetere, 2025 shows the region as it stood arond 20,000 years ago, with the emerged land, and modern shores (on the lower right side in color, are the shelve regions currently submerged):

Grimaldi Cave, and the Khoisan in Europe!

Keith, mentioned further up, regarding the Maltese Neanderthal teeth, believed that primitive Africans, related to the Bushmen (now known as Khoisan or San) reached Europe via Gibraltar or Sicily, and settled there, while Neanderthals and more modern-looking Cromagnons (anatomically modern humans) were native to Europe. The Grimaldi people were an example of the African branch. They discovered in 1901 by the Prince of Monaco in Mentone, Italy, (see Google map) at the lowest level of the Grimaldi Cave, were "of a race which was neither that of Neanderthal nor that of Cro-Magnon. The skeletons... present traits which have been interpreted as Negroid in character. It will be remembered that the Cro-Magnon race, with its Aurignacian culture, is supposed to have entered Europe from Asia by way of northern Africa and the old land-bridges across to Italy. Now in recent years there are coming to light all over Africa remains of a type of art, consisting mainly of engravings and paintings of animals, which in many ways recall the remarkable cave art of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. In South Africa works of this character are attributed in part to those dwarfish, yellow-skinned, woolly-haired little hunters, the Bushmen, themselves undoubtedly a very ancient race, now nearly extinct. Moreover, cer- tain of the physical peculiarities of the latter people are shown clearly in the figures of very stout nude women, carved from ivory or soft stone, which have been found here and there in the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. These facts, taken in conjunction with the Negroid traits ascribed to the two Grimaldi skeletons just mentioned, seem to hint at some African influence on Aurignacian art. Any more definite conclusion than this, however, we should hardly be justified in drawing as yet." (see p. 78 in Bishop, 1930)

The Grimaldi man and woman, are from the Late Paleolithic and lived 22,000 to 26,0000 years ago. They were modern humans. It is interesting that these ancient modern humans in Southern Europe were assumed to be Bushmen, we know that Europeans share the same pale skin pigmentation that Europeans have (see post).

Some like Clyde Winters support interactions between Khoisan and Europe (see his comment on a formal paper) suggesting that the " southern African Khoisan (SAK) population... SAK people were the Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon people of Western Eurasia... By 70 kya Khoisan people probably spread hg N into West Africa... Sometime before 40kya there was probably a second migration event from Cameroon and possibly the Senegambian region into Northwest Africa on into Iberia." Hinting at a Gibraltar Crossing. Note that Winters is African-Centric and also supports an early migration of Africans, who peopled America.

Comments

I rate this corridor as unlikely, even though it is feasible. Perhaps future findings in Sicily will shed more light on the matter.

My next post (#4 in the series) will cover the Sinai, Northern Red Sea Route.

---

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

OOA Routes: Gibraltar (Post 2)

This is the second post in my series on the possible routes used by hominins (from Homo erectus to modern humans) for their out of Africa (OOA) migration, and, why not, for potential "Into" Africa migrations. Today's post covers the Gibraltar Strait.

Post 1: Where was the Out of Africa Corridor?
Post 2: OOA Routes: Gibraltar
Post 3: OOA Routes: Strait of Sicily
Post 4: OOA Routes: Sinai
Post 5: OOA Routes: Bab-el-Mandeb

Gibraltar

The Strait of Gibraltar is a narrow strait set between the southern tip of Spain and Gibraltar on the northern, European side, and Ceuta and Morocco on the southern, African side.

It is roughly 25 km long (16 mi.) and 14 km wide (almost 9 miles) and serves as a waterway linking the Atlantic Ocean on the west with the Mediterranean Sea on the east. It is quite deep, ranging from 300 to 900 meters (980 to 2,950 ft.)

Two tectonic plates meet here, the African and the European plates, and the movement of both plates led to the closure of an older strait that preceded Gibrlatar, the Betian Strait 5.96 Million years ago, sealing the Mediterranean off, cutting the inflow of water from the Atlantic Ocean. Evaporation over the next 600,000 years led to the drying out of the Mediterranean, with deserts and salt flats covering its barren former seabed (Messinian salinity crisis). Later, rifting along the plates' edges led to the formation of the current strait, and the catastrophic flooding that followed, refilled the Mediterranean basin (Zanclean Flood).

The strait is a continuous body of water, the coast of Europe can be seen from Morocco, and vice versa. Possibly enticing hominins to set out and cross it.

Tne idea was first suggested by Paul Pallary (1869-1942) in 1909, when he proposed that a type of stone industry was shared on both sides of the strait some 25,000 years ago, he called it "Iberomaurusian". This was taken up by Obermaier (1924) who applied it to a "Capsio Tardenoisian" culture, the former in Africa, the latter in Europe. In his work, Obermaier wrote: "Old Stone Age. First invasion — from Africa. The primitive Chellean and Acheulean industries in stone spread from Egypt over northern Africa and through Spain into western Europe. At a later cultural stage, the Mousterian, which constitutes a further evolution of the two earlier cultures (its beginning estimated at 40,000 B.C.), fossil remains of men of the Neanderthal Race are found in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Jugo-Slavia, and Czecho-Slovakia. The Heidelberg Race, remains of which are found in Germany, is probably ancestral to this race and may have been contemporaneous with the Pre-Chellean culture ; no trace of it has yet been found in Spain."

Spanish historian and archaeologist Luis Pericot Garcí in the 1940s and 1950s incorporated the notion to his Aterian (north Africa) and Soultrean (Europe) common culture he "organized a crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar by raft—a crossing that proved more difficult than anticipated and could not be completed. He even believed that connections might have existed between Africa and Spain as early as the Lower Paleolithic, a theory potentially supported by the presence of numerous cleavers and other Acheulean artifacts of African character in the Iberian Peninsula."

Finally, Henriette Alimen (1900-1996) explored the potential crossings from Acheulean Africa to Europe via Gibraltar and the Tunisia-Sicily strait.

Modern scholars do not agree with any of these theories.

Stepping stones for an easy crossing

The image above (Fig 2. in Gibert Beotas, 2003) displays the current coasts of Africa and Spain at Gibraltar, and how it would look with a lower sea level after it droped 150 meters (492 ft.) Islands appear on the western side of the Strait. Gibert Beotas calculates that the distance is reduced to half, from 14 km to 5 plus 2 km, island hopping.

Straus, 2001 noted that a lower sea level would make some of the seabed appear on the surface: "several small islands would appear within the Strait in the sector between Paloma Point and Tangiers whenever sea fell further than 100 m below its present level, making for several short water crossings, none greater than ca. 5 km if this (western) route were to have been taken. The distances would have been even shorter under full glacial conditions, with sea-level regression of 120-130 m"

Regarding the crossing, Flemming, 2003 points out that "To the west of the narrowest part of the Strait a group of substantial shoals become large islands at glacial low sea level, and these were visible vegetated land masses, completely changing the appearance of the Strait from either shore. The length of the Strait itself was increased, and the archipelago provided a stepping stone and safety net to anyone seeking to cross."

Straus cites (see the article here too) who suggested that Lower Pleistocene hominids like Homo ergaster could have crossed at Gibraltar around 1.8 to 1.6 Million years ago when it was only 6.5 km wide during the Aullen marine transgression.

Straus concludes that it is unlikely that early Homo crossed the strait put it is "somewhat plausible" but any later contact is discarded during the Middle Pleistocene. Only, during the Upper Pleistocene did modern humans cross the strait, navigating across it.

Proof

Gibert Beotas aruges that ancient stone tools discovered in Orce, South Eastern Spain (Andalusia), knapped using Oldowan techniques, and dated to 1.4 Million years ago, are possibly the work of hominins who used the Gibraltar crossing, instead of taking the longer route across the Levant, Anatolia, the Balkans and eastern Europe, central Europe and then into Iberia.

There is evidence of animals crossing the straits since Miocene times, a two-way exchange between Europe and Africa. Humans could have done the same. Another fact to bear in mind is that hominins did cross open stretches of sea to reach Luzon in the Philippines, and Flores in Indonesia.

Arribas and Palmqvist, 1999 (see the article here too) argue that "crossing large rivers and mountainous chains, with adaptations to different vegetation zones and to broader ranges of temperature and rainfall, and a simultaneous colonization of Europe through Gibraltar, perhaps Sicily, and the Eastern Mediterranean helps to explain the presence in several north circummediterranean sites of Spain (Orce), Italy (Pirro Nord), Greece (Apollonia)and Georgia (Dmanisi) of certain African species of large mammals which have not been found, at present, in Central Europe during Lower Pleistocene times, such as M. whitei, whose dispersal seems to have been limited up to the 40°N parallel"

They included the following map in their research paper:

Animals like wild boars found in North Africa and Spain share a common genetic origin. Soria-Boix, 2017 wrote that "Contacts across the Strait of Gibraltar in the Pleistocene have been studied in different research papers, which have demonstrated that this apparent barrier has been permeable to human and fauna movements in both directions. Our study, based on the genetic analysis of wild boar (Sus scrofa), suggests that there has been contact between Africa and Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar in the Late Pleistocene (at least in the last 90,000 years), as shown by the partial analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Cytochrome b and the control region from North African wild boar indicate a close relationship with European wild boar, and even some specimens belong to a common haplotype in Europe. The analyses suggest the transformation of the wild boar phylogeography in North Africa by the emergence of a natural communication route in times when sea levels fell due to climatic changes, and possibly through human action, since contacts coincide with both the Last Glacial period and the increasing human dispersion via the strait."

Last July I posted about The common ancestor of Denisovans, Neanderthals and Humans, citing a paper by Hublin, 2026 who mentioned that "The Spanish and Moroccan fossils share several features in their teeth and mandibles. Both groups display a combination of archaic and derived features reminiscent of later hominins... These similarities revive the question of possible exchanges across the Strait of Gibraltar during the EP."

Comments

The crossing is feasible, short, and was done by animals over the course of the past few million years. There are fossils in Spain and Morocco that suggest an exchange between Africa and Europe (possibly both ways). This could be one of the corridors used by hominins to people the world either from Eurasia into Africa, or the other way round.

---

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

Where was the Out of Africa corridor? (post 1)

The African origin of modern humans, and all hominins (including Homo erectus and other Eurasian hominins) implies that they originated there, descending from the great apes of that continent (i.e. Chimpanzees) and later migrated out of Africa into the Old World, and much more recently, via Berigia, into the Americas.

But, which was the course the ancient hominins that led to erectus, the later ones leading to Neanderthals and Denisovans, and finally those leading to us, took to move out of Africa? Which was the route?

In fact there is no certainty on this matter, and more than one route have been proposed for the Out Of Africa migration. These routes are shown below, in a map of Africa and the closest points that separate it from Eurasia. These are, from west to east, Gibraltar, the Strait of Sicily, Sinai, and Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.

The "out of" and "into" Africa routes for hominin migration. Copyright © 2026 by Austin Whittall

These routes were proposed by anthropologists because they are feasible. It is easier to cross 10 km of water via Gibraltar, where you can see the European coast from Morocco in North Africa than setting sail from Egypt northwards into an open sea without knowing what lies ahead. This can be said about the other two crossings (Straits of Sicily and Bab-el-Mandeb), where the stepping stones across the Red Sea and the Mediterranean are visible from the coast of Africa.

Feasibility also implies that the water can be navigated. In fact, Homo erectus crossed open stretches of sea 800,000 years ago in Indonesia, and also to reach Crete. This suggests that they had seafaring abilities.

Another factor is that animals seem to have been able to negotiate with these sea crossings, so one would expect humans could do the same.

The final argument is the similarity, or continuity of certain stone knapping technologies on both sides of the gap, suggesting a population bridging the gap during a migration. This is something seen in the Levant, where archaics and even modern humans are found in Israel (Levant).

Two way routes

The fact that they were used to exit Africa (the articles I cite are all formal ones, and they uphold the African origin of hominins and modern humans) does not mean they were used in the opposite direction, for "Into Africa" migrations.

Neanderthal alleles have been found in Africa, sourced from Eurasia; and it is possible that Homo erectus originated in Eurasia and migrated into Africa, or that modern humans did the same, peopling Africa. It is possible that the common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and all homo species originated in Eurasia.

Over the next posts, I will describe each of these corridors, Gibraltar, Strait of Sicily, Sinai, and Bab-el-Mandeb.

This Series of Posts comprises the following posts

Post 1: Where was the Out of Africa Corridor?
Post 2: OOA Routes: Gibraltar
Post 3: OOA Routes: Strait of Sicily
Post 4: OOA Routes: Sinai
Post 5: OOA Routes: Bab-el-Mandeb

---

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

Hobbit hominins in Europe? Ludovic Slimak and his current research

An article published in the Spanish daily El País in its Science section, (read it here, in English) on Feb 16, 2026, was an interview of the French archaeologist and paleoanthropologist Ludovic Slimak (b. 1973). In the final part of the interview, Slimak mentions an amazing discovery: the possible existence of pigmy hominins that predate the last Ice Age, in France; creatures similar to the Flores Island hobbits (Homo floresiensis).

This is the full text that final part (highlighted text is mine):

"Q. Do you have any new discoveries?
A. Yes. I can’t give out any details because we’re going to publish it in a scientific journal, maybe in two or three years. And I’ll write my next book about this, which will be called something like The People of the Forest. It’s possible that other, completely unknown human populations existed. We’ve found a body in a deep cave. In a layer of soil that predates glaciation. It’s fascinating because the morphology is very specific. It looks like a seven-year-old child, but it’s the body of an adult. From what we’ve seen, there are no Neanderthal features. And we don’t know what it is. It could be a population like the one in Hobbit of Flores, isolated in a very dense forest, as they were at that time. There may be several more bodies. We have work ahead for years. I can’t say more."

Censured and Redacted

The European Hobbit is also mentioned in an article published in Human Evolution News titled Hobbit Neanderthals? Top French Scientist may have revealed a new species of Diminutive Hominin in Europe? (April 27, 2026). It echoes the same theme, mentioning the interview published in El País and adds a suggestive remark: the interview was edited and something was deleted from it: "... according to the channel Highly Compelling, the original version of the interview contained something far more explosive — and it was quietly removed."

Highly Compelling is a video feed on Youtube, and this is the link to the video mentioned above.

The removed part is evident, as can be seen in the current version of the El País' article, that ends as follows (after he mentions the name of the book —People of the Forest:

"...We are working on layers dating back over 100,000 years, corresponding to an Europe covered by vast primary forests. It is a fascinating and still largely unknown phase. We know very little about how human populations lived in those dense, closed landscapes. Our image of Neanderthals is too heavily shaped by the cold and the glaciations, but before the ice, there was forest. These could be populations that developed very specific lifestyles in those environments. We are only just beginning to understand it. We have years of work ahead of us."

The paragraph is very vague and completely different from the original text! No reference to unknown dwarf-like people, only some comments about how different people could have lived in Europe before glaciations, when it was covered by forests, and non-Neanderthal "populations" adapted to that environment.

The following image, shows the original, and the current text, that was redacted.

The video suggests that the search for the hobbit has already begun: The renewed excavations at the Orgnac 3 site in southeastern France implies that they are working on this find. The site's lower levels are around 375,000 to 400,000 years old. Previous digging there in the 1970s described remains of "neanderthal, mostly from juveniles, and lacking clear Neanderthal features" juveniles seem to imply small body size (like a seven-year-old), and the lack of Neanderthal features agree with the comment in El País. The video suggests that they could be Homo habilis or Naledi. They are small and ancient creatures. It hints that pygmy proportions could provide an evolutionary advantage such as less demand for resources, easier mobility in thick forests, quicker reproduction rate. They would compete in a different niche with other hominins and avoid conflict. The change in climate conditions during the glacial periods probably marked their demise. The video also says that the original 1960s excavations found modern-looking teeth that, however, were around 400,000 years old, a "warmer" interglacial period during which the are was forested.

Bahain et al., 2022 provide a good summary about the Ognac-3 site. Another paper by Moncel et al., 2012 about the site mentions the "... several hominin teeth attributed to Pre-Neanderthals" found there. Both are paywalled.

Slimak et al., 2024 describe the teeth (see p. 100 "Hominid Remains") unearthed at the site: "Seven hominid teeth were discovered from Levels 5a, 5b, and 6. An adult upper right canine was discovered in 1962, and two deciduous incisors and 4 deciduous molars were discovered between 1968 and 1971. M.A. de Lumley (de Lumley 1976) reports that two of the deciduous molars come from a juvenile around 9 years old, whereas two incisors come from a juvenile around 5 years old.... Based on these comparisons, M.-A. de Lumley attributed the hominid remains from Orgnac 3 to ‘pre-neanderthal’ (de Lumley 1976). No information is given about the two remaining molars, and no photographs or drawings of any of the specimens have ever been provided, except a photograph of one of the deciduous molars in situ during excavation in 1968 (fig. S3; Combier 1968, 1971)." Are the teeth attributed to the children actually teeth of dwarfish hominins? Does pre-neanderthal imply a primitive variant of hominin?

Closing Comments

Speculating wildly, we can imagine different scenarios to account for these tiny hominins.

First we must consider if Homo habilis was a homo or an australopith (see this post), and the H. naledi probably never left Africa, and maybe isn't even a member of our homo lineage (see this post). This could discard both species as the source of European pygmy hominins.

An interesting alternative could be that the homo group originated in Eurasia instead of Africa (see this post) evolving into the Dmanisi - H. georgicus people in the Caucasus region, and Homo erectus (who have been in Eurasia for around 2 million years).

This ancient Eurasian ancestor, the first of the homo lineage, could be the ancestor of the Flores Island hobbit (H. floresiensis), who, as mentioned in my previous post, Chris Stringer suggests, is "...a relic of an earlier stage of human evolution that got all the way over there" (in Indonesia) before Homo erectus reached that region.

Could those who lived in Western Eurasia be the tiny-bodied hominins mentioned by Slimak?

We will have to wait a couple of years for the paper promised by Slimak to learn more.

---

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

Homo antecessor is possibly the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans

A research paper published a few days ago, on August 3, 2026, has looked into the the microstructure of the skull of Homo antecessor,a hominin that lived in what is now Spain, 800,000 to 900,000 years ago.

The article, Parietal thickness and Homo antecessor: A description of three new fragments from Gran Dolina, Atapuerca, Spain🔒, by Gallareto-Sande, Bruner, Saladié, and Martinó,n-Torres focuses on the similarities of the bone structure of H. antecessor and Neanderthals, and H. sapiens.

The authors note that although it had initially been "proposed as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans based on a combination of derived facial features and primitive postcranial and dental traits" later studies suggested it was a branch or "stem" within our clade.

According to Phys.org the paper found that the the "total cranial vault thickness of these adult individuals falls within the range observed in modern humans and Neanderthals and is clearly lower than that found in Homo erectus and other early Pleistocene hominins."

The sample used bones from four adult individuals which were analyzed using computer microtomography. This allowed the researchers to study each layer of the bone structure. Though they caution that the sample is small, the layer knwon as diplo%ë on the inner side of the bone is very similar, in its thickness to that of humans and Neanderthals. Howver, the outer and inner layers show differences between antecessor and Neanderthals and humans, they are slightly thinner and thicker, respectively, than theirs. Even so, they are very unlike those of the other hominins like Homo erectus and the African species.

The paper does not say so, but it makes me wonder if this European hominin evolved there, in situ, from older erectus populations, and is, in fact, the Last Common Ancestors of Modern Humans and the Neanderthal-Denisovan lineages. See my post about this possibility, and also this post, and this post.

---

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

Homo heidelbergensis from Africa and Denisovans are linked

A research paper published in 2025 (Candidate Denisovan fossils identified through gene regulatory phenotyping, by Nadav Mishol, Gadi Herzlinger, Yoel Rak, Uzy Smilanksy, Liran Carmel, David Gokhman, bioRxiv 2024.04.18.590145; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.18.590145 and in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences doi: 10.1073/pnas.2513968122) reported the study of the shape of different skulls from the Middle Pleistocene, spanning Eurasian and African specimens, including Neanderthal, Homo erectus and modern humans to try to identify the traits that indicate the Denisovan morphology. The study found something quite interesting besides the similarity between Denisovans and some East Asian fossils, below I cite their conclusions and highlight the relevant part:

"these analyses revealed that the East Asian specimens of Harbin and Dali show an exceptionally high concordance with the Denisovan profile, surpassing all other examined Middle Pleistocene hominin specimens, including Neanderthals. Specifically, 15 out of 18 of Dali’s features and 16 out of 18 of Harbin’s matched Denisovan predictions. These findings are robust to overall skull size and to correlations between phenotypes. We also found that Kabwe 1 shows a strong affinity to the Denisovan–Neanderthal clade and might be placed near its root"

Kabwe the African fossil

Kabwe 1 was unearthed in 1921 in Kabwe, in what is now Zambia. It is a fossil skull also known as the Rhodesia man or Broken Hill, and has been classified as a member of the Homo heidelbergensis group. It is rather primitive, with heavy brow ridges, and a flat forehead, its shape resembles that of Homo erectus yet it is relatively recent, dated to around 324,000 - 274,000 years old (source) which makes it contemporaneous with the first members of our species, Homo sapiens who are said to have appeared in North Africa 300,000 years ago.

Besides the oddity of archaic and moderns co-existing in Africa 300 kya. Kabwe 1 is extremely close to Denisovans! Which is an unusual finding because Denisovans are not known to have migrated into Africa, they are better known as East or Southeast, or Central Asian populations that admixed over there with modern humans as these entered that region around 50 ky ago.

Let's see what the paper has to say about this similarity:

"Several test subjects, most notably Kabwe 1, exhibit unexpectedly high concordance with the Denisovan profile, despite being unlikely to be Denisovans. Although discovered in Africa, Kabwe 1 not only aligns well with the Denisovan profile (Fig. 4) but also clusters closely in the PCA with Dali, a potential Denisovan (Fig. 6 and SI Appendix, Fig. S3). Although our current knowledge of Denisovan habitat is lacking, it is unlikely that they reached Southern Africa. Hence, Kabwe 1 is unlikely to be directly positioned on the Denisovan lineage. A more plausible explanation is that the resemblance of some of these specimens to Denisovans reflects a proximal phylogenetic affinity with the Neanderthal–Denisovan clade, perhaps close to its root."

So, the authors assume that there has been no migration of Denisovans into Africa, and based on this assumption they suggest that the African fossil is similar to Denisovans because it was a close relative to the Denisovan-Neanderthal group that left Africa, and split into Neanderthals and Denisovans. A conclusion repeated again in the closing part of the paper, as you can read below:

"The resemblance of several specimens attributed to H. heidelbergensis to the Denisovan profile, and specifically the African specimen Kabwe 1, is particularly intriguing. The similarity between Kabwe 1 and other high-scoring specimens is evident in all PCAs (Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure 10), suggesting that this resemblance is not limited to Denisovan-like phenotypes. Despite our limited knowledge of the true range of Denisovans, it is unlikely that they reached Southern Africa, hence Kabwe 1 is unlikely to be directly positioned on the Denisovan lineage. A more plausible explanation is that the resemblance of some of these specimens to Denisovans reflects a proximal phylogenetic affinity with Denisovans. For example, H. heidelbergensis specimens were positioned either close to the split between modern and archaic humans or close to the split between Neanderthals and Denisovans [29]. If H. heidelbergensis is indeed phylogenetically closer to the Neanderthal-Denisovan split than Neanderthals are, it is expected to exhibit an even greater similarity to the Denisovan profile than Neanderthals do. Another alternative explanation is that Denisovans might have retained several ancestral phenotypes observed in H. heidelbergensis [59], or that these phenotypes were affected by gene flow into Denisovans, originating from contemporaneous H. heidelbergensis [17]."

The authors don't explain how the African fossil can be closer to the Denisovans than the Neanderthals. It is assumed that neither group entered Africa. That the common ancestor of Denisovans and Neanderthals left Africa, splitting from the group that would lead to us, modern humans. Then, in Eurasia, the ancestral group of Denisovans and Neanderthals split into two species, one heading East, the other colonizing the West of Eurasia. So, how could a primitive hominin in Zambia be closer to a group that split in the Levant?

The second explanation requires explaining why the Denisovans ended up with the primitive ancestral form found in Kabwe but not the Neanderthals. The final explanation of gene flow into Denisovans via contemporaneous Homo heidelbergensis would require them being alive and kicking in Western Eurasia around 600 ky ago!

The nice part of this paper is that it is thought provoking: Denisovans and Homo heidelbergensis are linked. Notice that Heidelbergensis got its name from a site in Heidelberg, Germany where it was found in 1908 (source). It is found in Europe and Africa. Of course, it is claimed to have evolved in Africa. But, could these people have evolved in Eurasia, leading to the ancestor of modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals, adding more genes to the Denisovans who carried them east, and finally, a group of heidelbergensis moved into Africa resulting in the Zambia fossils?

The current bias against an Into Africa flow makes this hypothesis unlikely to be accepted. But it seems the most logical one. Furthermore, flow of the heidelbergensis into Atapuerca people and then from Spain into North Africa seems a plausible explanation for the evolution of Modern Humans separately from the Neanderthal-Denisovan group.

---

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

The common ancestor of Denisovans, Neanderthals and Humans

A paper published in February of this year, in Nature, by Hublin et al., analyzed the shape of jaws and teeth of several fossils collected in Morocco and compared them to those of Neanderthals, the older Homo antecessor, modern humans, and Homo erectus to try to unravel how our Homo sapiens species evolved in North Africa, the site where the oldest human remains have been found (300,000 years old).

The paper mentions that the common ancestor of modern humans, Neanderthals, and Asian Denisovans lived between 765 and 550 thousand years ago (ka), but where it lived is still a mystery. Some studies have proposed that the Homo antecessor, whose remains were uncovered in the Gran Dolina site, Atapuerca, Spain (950-770 ka) is the candidate for this last common ancestor of the later homo genus.

The Homo antecessor fossils are named in the paper as TD6, after the layer where they were found. If antecessor is the ancestor, it means we had a European origin. However, all of the oldest Homo sapiens remains older than 90,000 years, have been found either in North Africa or in the Levant, taken by the proponents of the Out of Africa (OOA) theory as an indication of an African origin for modern humans, and Africa as the site of the last common ancestor of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and us.

This paper compares remains found in a site close to Casablanca, Morocco, in northwest Africa, known as the Grotte à Hominidés (which we name here as ThI-GH). These remains are in the right time period to be ancestral to all groups (773 ka).

The conclusions of Hublin et al., are quoted below, I have highlighted some relevant parts:

"In North Africa, the ThI-GH hominins are the only specimens unearthed within an indisputable stratigraphic context and securely dated to the MBT at a nominal age of 773 ±4 ka. These hominins cannot be directly compared with later specimens, such as the Kabwe or Bodo skulls, which have been tentatively assigned to H. heidelbergensis. Not only do these specimens differ substantially in age, but they also lack preservation of comparable anatomical parts. Our analysis suggests that the ThI-GH hominins probably belong to an evolved form of H. erectus sensu lato in North Africa, much as H. antecessor does in Europe. However, the ThI-GH hominins offer an interesting contrast to both the Spanish fossils and the considerably older fossils from Tighennif (Algeria), which are likely to date to at least 1,000 ka. The fossil mandibles from Tighennif appear more primitive, larger and more robust than both the European H. antecessor and the northwest African ThI-GH fossils. The Spanish and Moroccan fossils share several features in their teeth and mandibles. Both groups display a combination of archaic and derived features reminiscent of later hominins (Supplementary Table 25). These similarities revive the question of possible exchanges across the Strait of Gibraltar during the EP. Nevertheless, the ThI-GH hominins are different from the TD6 hominins. The pattern of these differences suggests that regional differentiation between Europe and North Africa was already present by the late EP. Apparent Neanderthal-like features on the larger ThI-GH-1 mandible could reflect primitive retentions, allometric effects or convergent evolution but, when more phylogenetically informative dental characters are considered, the Spanish specimens appear more derived towards the Neanderthal morphology that later emerged in western Eurasia.
The origin of H. sapiens, and the precise timing of the divergence of its ancestral populations from the Neanderthal–Denisovan clade, remain subjects of debate. Anatomical evidence has at times been used to argue for a split predating 800 ka and even for an alternative Asian ancestry of our species. In this context, the Maghreb fossils are key to understanding the diversification of MP hominins. The morphology of the ThI-GH hominins places them close to the split between the African and Eurasian lineages. Our findings not only align with the phylogenetic structure inferred from palaeogenetic data but also highlight the Maghreb as a pivotal region for understanding the emergence of our species, reinforcing the case for an African rather than a Eurasian ancestry of H. sapiens."

Comments

The closing phrase about an African origin of modern humans is expected as the authors don't want to go against the established dogma. However, the point about intercontinental exchange via Gibraltar during the Early Pleistocene is extremely interesting. It is very likely that our common ancestor, even H. erectus had the ability to cross such a narrow body of water in boats. The similarity of Atapuerca specimens with Neanderthals is also relevant, as Neanderthals are Eurasian, not African. The differences between H. heidelbergensis specimens within Africa and the Moroccan fossils hints at a separate stem of hominins in North Africa vs. central and southern Africa. Furthermore, the authors suggest that it was Homo erectuswho evolved into the Moroccan specimens, and that the erectus present in Africa were more primitive and robust than the European lineage.

Taken together, this suggests, in my opinion, That the erectus line, after evolving in Eurasia, moved into Northern Africa via Gibraltar, and had already settled in Western Europe, and evolved in this region (Spain-Morocco) into the common ancestor of Neanderthals-Denisovans and Humans, in Europe.

How can we account for the absence of Denisovans and Neanderthals in Africa? But, assume that modern humans originated there? This is a serious flaw in the African origin theory.

An answer to those questions is that the "common ancestor" migrated east into Eurasia and the Levant, diverging there into Neanderthals and Denisovans who, respectively, colonized Western and Eastern Eurasia. From this common root, modern humans split, entering Africa via Sinai or maybe Bab el Mandeb, while spreading eastwards across Eurasia.

---

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

More papers by Úlfur Árnason on "Out of Eurasia"

My previous post mentioned a paper by Úlfur Árnason against the Out of Africa hypothesis, in which he upholds an Out of Eurasia migration and origin of Modern Humans. I looked for more articles authored by Árnason on this subject. They are listed below:

• A phylogenetic view of the Out of Asia/Eurasia and Out of Africa hypotheses in the light of recent molecular and palaeontological finds. Árnason, Úlfur. (2017) Gene 627. p.473-476. Online, paywall.
• The Out of Africa hypothesis and the ancestry of recent humans: Cherchez la femme (et l'homme). Letter to the Editor. Árnason, Úlfur. (2016) Gene 585, Issue 1, 1 July 2016, p 9-12. Online, paywall.
• Árnason Ú, Hallström B. The reversal of human phylogeny: Homo left Africa as erectus, came back as sapiens sapiens. Hereditas. 2020 Dec 19;157(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s41065-020-00163-9. PMID: 33341120; PMCID: PMC7749984. Online, free access.

A simplified view of Hss dispersal. The shaded area signifies a geographically undefined Asian (Eurasian) area from which Hss dispersed. Mbuti/San mark the earliest Hss exodus into Africa followed by later Yoruba exoduses. The green tracks represent routes that signify potential routes into Southeast Asia and Oceania. Source

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

An Eurasian origin for Homo Sapiens (2021 paper)

I found an interesting paper published four years ago (Árnason, Ú. The unidirectional phylogeny of Homo sapiens anchors the origin of modern humans in Eurasia. Hereditas 158, 36 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41065-021-00197-7) that provides an analysis showing that Homo sapiens sapiens or modern humans originated in Eurasia!!

The author summarizes his "Out of Eurasia" findings as follows: He identified "potentially four translocations of modern humans from Eurasia into Africa, the earliest taking place ≈ 250,000 years before present, YBP. The results were in accordance with the postulates behind OOEH [Out of Eurasia Hypothesis] at the same time ... they lent no support to the OOAH [Out of Africa Hypothesis].

The paper places Homo erectus at the base of the nuclear DNA tree: "Homo erectus, He, has been placed at the root of the tree consistent with He entering Eurasia from Africa > 2 million years ago". The following image appears with the caption that is given below.

Fig. 1 in Arnason (2021). Source

Fig. 1. Captioned: "The nuDNA phylogeny leading to Hss, Homo sapiens sapiens. Blue: Eurasian lineages. Red: African lineages. H. erectus has been placed at the root of the tree in accordance with the artefact sequence related to the Eurasian existence of He 2,12 MYBP. The divergence between Hs, H. sapiens, and Ha, H. antecessor, has been dated to ≈ 850,000 YBP, that between Hss and Hsn, H. s. neanderthalensis, to ≈ 800,000 YBP and that between Lund and Mbuti/San to ≈ 250,000 YBP. Hsn divides into Hsnn, Neanderthals proper, and Hsnd, Denisova, with Hsnn dividing further into SH-Hsnn (Hsnn at Sima de los Huesos) and Hsnn*, a branch arising as the result of the mtDNA introgression that took place from Hss into Hsnn* ≈ 500,000 YBP". Where Hsn is Neanderthal, HSnd, Denisovan.

Fig. 2 in Arnason (2021). Source

Fig. 2's Caption reads: "The mtDNA relationships of Hs demonstrating the paraphyly of the African Hss populations as resolved by PPA. Blue: non-African taxa; red: African taxa. Hsnn*: Hsnn other than SH-Hsnn. The arrowheads signify the mtDNA introgression that gave rise to Hsnn*. The limitation of Hsnn to Eurasia places the mtDNA introgression in this continent, reversing the direction of Hss evolution behind OOAH. The Hss part of the tree underlines the phylogenetic continuity among non-African populations and the paraphyly of the African populations including the two Yoruba [1]. AuAb: Australian aborigines; PNG: Papua New Guinean; Han: Chinese; Lund: The first described non-chimaeric human mtDNA molecule [19]; French: A European, as representing previous genomic findings"

An interesting hypothesis that has surely been torn apart by those who support the OOA theory. Nevertheless, since 2021, findings in China have provided some additional support to the notion that there were evolved humans in Asia at least 200,000 years ago besides the Denisovans.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025by Austin Whittall © 

Hominin footprints from Crete... 5.7 Million years ago

New discoveries every day. A few months ago the paper on Graecopithecus freybergi hinted at a hominin living in the Balkans 7.2 Million years ago:

Fuss J, Spassov N, Begun DR, Böhme M (2017) Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

Today I came across this article:

Gerard D. Gierliński et al. Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete? Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, published online August 31, 2017; doi: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.07.006

Amazingly, footprints of an ancient hominin were found in Crete and they are 5.7 Million years old, so here we have Balkans and Crete and hominins in two separate papers... were we from Africa?

The Footprints from Crete. Gerard D. Gierliński et al

Notice the compact foot with even sized toes, a human-like big toe and a heel! This is no chimp-like ape, this is a bipedal hominin walking along a beach in Crete! Maybe related to the Graecopithecus?. Was there an into-Africa event from Europe?

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2017 by Austin Whittall ©