Posted on 01/23/2025 12:02:55 PM PST by Red Badger
Scientists have uncovered evidence suggesting that hominins, the ancient relatives of modern humans, were present in Europe at least 1.95 million years ago.
This finding, from the Grăunceanu site in Romania’s Olteț River Valley, represents the earliest-known trace of hominin activity on the continent, predating prior European hominin fossils by more than half a million years.
The discovery, recently published in Nature Communications, hinges on meticulously analyzed cut-marked animal bones unearthed in a fossil-rich region historically overlooked in discussions of early human migration.
According to researchers, these cut marks were made with tools, indicating that hominins were actively butchering animals in what is now central Romania. This marks a pivotal shift in our understanding of early human dispersals beyond Africa.
“The timing of the initial dispersal of hominins into Eurasia is unclear,” researchers wrote. “Our results, presented along with multiple other lines of evidence, point to a widespread, though perhaps intermittent, presence of hominins across Eurasia by at least 2.0 Ma.”
For decades, the Dmanisi site in Georgia, dated 1.8 million years ago, was considered the earliest hominin presence in Eurasia. While numerous sites across Asia and the Middle East hinted at hominin activities earlier than Dmanisi, Europe remained a puzzle.
The Romanian site at Grăunceanu, first excavated in the 1960s but only recently dated using cutting-edge uranium-lead methods, now reshapes that narrative. With high confidence dating to 1.95 million years ago, it challenges established timelines and opens new debates about the pathways and adaptability of early human populations.
The findings could fundamentally change our understanding of when and how hominins ventured into Europe, suggesting that they adapted to a wide range of environments far earlier than previously believed.
The team’s conclusions stem from a meticulous analysis of nearly 5,000 animal bones from the Grăunceanu site. Among these, 20 specimens showed distinct cut marks—seven with high confidence and another 13 deemed probable.
The marks were concentrated in areas typical of defleshing activities, such as tibias and mandibles, suggesting intentional butchery rather than random environmental or predatory effects.
These marks were identified using qualitative and quantitative methods, including advanced 3D imaging and comparative statistical analyses. The team says they eliminated alternative explanations, such as trampling or tooth marks, solidifying the case for hominin involvement.
The bones belonged to various species, including artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates) and smaller carnivores, reflecting a diverse and opportunistic subsistence strategy.
These findings suggest that Grăunceanu offers more than just evidence of early human presence. It paints a picture of the environment hominins inhabited. The region, part of the Dacian sedimentary basin, was a mix of open grasslands and woodlands, characterized by mild winters and distinct wet and dry seasons. Isotopic analyses of a horse tooth from the site revealed variations in rainfall and temperature, suggesting seasonal adaptations by fauna and hominins.
The fauna at Grăunceanu included a surprising array of species, from ostriches to pangolins, which typically thrive in warm climates. This indicates that while winters were mild, hominins still faced environmental challenges, such as seasonal droughts and limited resources, that would have tested their resilience and adaptability.
The discovery could have broad implications for understanding early human evolution and migration. The timeline for hominin dispersal out of Africa has been a subject of intense debate, with the first migrations generally dated to around 2 million years ago. The Grăunceanu evidence suggests that these early populations were moving more rapidly and adapting to diverse and challenging environments than previously thought.
The tools used by these hominins remain elusive, as no lithics (stone tools) have been conclusively linked to the site. However, similar sites in the region have yielded simple flake tools, consistent with early Homo species. This raises the possibility that the Grăunceanu hominins were part of a broader wave of migration that included primitive tool technologies.
Despite its significance, the Grăunceanu site raises as many questions as it answers. Without direct hominin fossils, researchers can only speculate about which species were responsible for the cut marks. The timing aligns with the earliest appearances of Homo erectus in Africa, but other possibilities, including Homo habilis or even an unknown hominin, cannot be ruled out.
The lack of stone tools also limits the ability to connect these hominins to broader cultural or technological trends. Future excavations and analyses will aim to uncover more direct evidence of their presence, such as additional tools or, ideally, fossilized remains.
Ultimately, the discovery at Grăunceanu underscores the importance of revisiting older fossil sites with modern techniques. As more regions are studied, the timeline of human evolution and migration continues to expand, revealing a more complex and dynamic story than previously imagined.
“Hominins as a whole, and particularly members of the genus Homo, are often characterized by their environmental flexibility,” researchers concluded. “The widespread presence of hominins in Eurasia circa 2 Ma, as we argue and provide evidence for here in the form of cut-marked bones securely dated to minimally 1.95 Ma, is further support for this flexibility.”
“While it is clear that the hominin presence in Eurasia at this time was likely geographically and temporally discontinuous, the preponderance of ephemeral traces for hominins in this region can no longer be ignored.”
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com
PinGGG!..............
What kind of coat is he wearing in that pic.? It looks like pilt down.
Faux Fur........................
I wonder if Ron Perlman consented to the use of his picture ....
Amusing.
Thanks Red Badger.
So a few cut marks makes them think that hominins existed further back than previously believed. I'm not saying it's impossible that hominins were around back then. I'm just saying that this info isn't enough to put too much into. For example, we already know examples of bite marks leaving straight line marks in bones.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6188009/
Long and straight bites from tyrannosaurs are typically left as a result of scrape feeding where the premaxillary teeth are drawn across the cortex (Hone & Watabe, 2010) and usually leave multiple subparallel traces that are broad because of the D-shaped nature of the teeth and these are therefore rather unlike mark 2.
If they don’t have the skin how do they know he was all wrinkled up?
“Gypsies, tramps and thieves...”
Watch out Neanderthal cave men...hide yer wallets
Do these guys just pull imaginary dates out of their butts? 1.5 million years this 2 billion years that.
“While it is clear that the hominin presence in Eurasia at this time was likely geographically and temporally discontinuous, the preponderance of ephemeral traces for hominins in this region can no longer be ignored.”
Is it me or does this sound like these people predated the people who were supposed to have come from Africa??
“Fossil data were then statistically compared with a sample of 898 BSMs of known origin, including: 405 cut marks from a variety of stone tool types and raw materials53; 275 tooth marks from crocodiles and five species of mammalian carnivores54; 130 trample marks produced by cows on substrates including sand, gravel, and soil55; and 88 percussion marks from both anvils and hammerstones56.”
The original study source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56154-9#Sec6
Yes .....
Twenty specimens total exhibit cut marks; of these, 7 display high-confidence cut marks, 12 show probable cut marks, and 1 specimen presents both types of marks (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2–21, Supplementary Data 2); detailed descriptions of all marks can be found in Supplementary Note 5.
I'm not saying that these aren't real cut-marks. And I do hold on to the possibility. I'm just saying I'd like more than 7 to have more certainty.
Cut marks were identified using two methods: 1) qualitative analyses modified from18,19, and 2) quantitative analyses using methods outlined in ref.
Hmmmmm....now this is interesting. We're talking about identifying the cut-marks with "qualitative analyses". I hope you understand that my skepticism meter just ticked up a few notches. Keep in mind that I fell for the Lucy scam and others decades ago.
But if you look at the images it is obvious. These marks look exactly like butchering marks from later periods. And they are on the right places that would be required to cut main muscle attachment points. I have seen a LOT of these and they fit the bill.
Oprah??
No!! Whoopi!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
