DOCSLIB.ORG

An Australasian Test of the Recent African Origin Theory Using the WLH

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Australasian Test of the Recent African Origin Theory Using the WLH John Hawks An Australasian test of the recent African Department of Anthropology, origin theory using the WLH-50 calvarium University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, This analysis investigates the ancestry of a single modern human U.S.A. E-mail: specimen from Australia, WLH-50 (Thorne et al., in preparation; [email protected] Webb, 1989). Evaluating its ancestry is important to our understand- ing of modern human origins in Australasia because the prevailing Stephen Oh models of human origins make different predictions for the ancestry Paleoanthropology Laboratory, of this specimen, and others like it. Some authors believe in the Department of Anthropology, validity of a complete replacement theory and propose that modern University of Michigan, humans in Australasia descended solely from earlier modern human Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382, populations found in Late Pleistocene Africa and the Levant. These U.S.A. ancestral modern populations are believed to have completely replaced other archaic human populations, including the Ngandong hominids of Indonesia. According to this recent African origin theory, Keith Hunley the archaic humans from Indonesia are classified as Homo erectus,a Paleoanthropology Laboratory, different evolutionary species that could not have contributed to the Department of Anthropology, ancestry of modern Australasians. Therefore this theory of complete University of Michigan, replacement makes clear predictions concerning the ancestry of the Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382, specimen WLH-50. We tested these predictions using two methods: U.S.A. E-mail: a discriminant analysis of metric data for three samples that are [email protected] potential ancestors of WLH-50 (Ngandong, Late Pleistocene Africans, Levant hominids from Skhul and Qafzeh) and a pairwise difference analysis of nonmetric data for individuals within these Seth Dobson samples. The results of these procedures provide an unambiguous Department of Anthropology, refutation of a model of complete replacement within this region, and Washington University, indicate that the Ngandong hominids or a population like them may St. Louis, MO 63130, have contributed significantly to the ancestry of WLH-50. We there- U.S.A. E-mail: fore contend that Ngandong hominids should be classified within the [email protected] evolutionary species, Homo sapiens. The Multiregional model of human evolution has the expectation that Australasian ancestry is in all three of the potentially ancestral groups and best explains modern Graciela Cabana Australasian origins. Paleoanthropology Laboratory, 2000 Academic Press Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Praveen Dayalu Paleoanthropology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382, U.S.A. Milford H. Wolpoff Paleoanthropology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382, U.S.A. E-mail: wolpoff@umich.edu 0047–2484/00/070001+22$35.00/0 2000 Academic Press 2 . ET AL. Received 15 July 1998 Revision received 12 September 1998 and accepted 15 September 1999 Keywords: modern human origins, Australasia, recent African origins, Journal of Human Evolution (2000) 39, 1–22 multiregional evolution, doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0384 WLH-50, Ngandong. Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Introduction hypothesis of modern human origins in Australasia have explained the seemingly Since its discovery in 1982, Willandra Lakes archaic nature of WLH-50 differently, as a Hominid (WLH) 50, as reconstructed by A. consequence of either its size and related Thorne, has figured prominently in discus- robusticity or possibly pathology (Stringer, sions of modern human origins in Australia 1998; Webb, 1990), but not as a result and Indonesia (Thorne, 1984; Webb, 1989; of any significant ancestor–descendant ff Thorne & Wolpo , 1992; Frayer et al., relationship with earlier Australasian 1993, 1994; Stringer, 1998). Dated to some populations. Despite these differences, both 15–13 ka by gamma spectrometric U-series interpretations agree on one fundamental item; analysis (Simpson & Gru¨n, 1998), and to WLH-50 is a modern human (Thorne, 1984; about double that by ESR (on bone, by Wolpoff, 1989, 1999; Stringer, 1998). Caddie et al., 1987), the WLH-50 cal- We therefore begin with the supposition varium appears on inspection to exhibit that earlier Late Pleistocene Africans, many features that closely resemble earlier Levantines (Near Eastern individuals from Indonesian hominids, including the Skhul and Qafzeh), and WLH-50 are mem- Ngandong fossils of Java [Thorne, cited in bers of the same species, Homo sapiens, and Wong (1999); Thorne et al., in preparation; all represent modern humans or their im- ff Wolpo , 1999]. Those authors who support mediate ancestors. There are two different a multiregional model of human evolution predictions about the pattern of ancestry, view the similarities between the Ngandong and it is from these that we can develop a hominids and WLH-50 as phylogenetic, test for the African replacement model for meaning in this case that these specimens modern human origins. The replacement are members of the same evolutionary model asserts: species and share some features by virtue of ( 1) The earlier Late Pleistocene Africans having come from the same region of the and Levantines are likely to be direct world (Frayer et al., 1993, 1994). Ngandong ancestors of WLH-50 by virtue of age is one of the probable ancestors of WLH-50, 1 and geography. in this view, or the two may share a recent ( 2) The Ngandong hominids cannot be common ancestor. However, authors who direct ancestors of WLH-50, by support the recent African replacement virtue of being in a different species, 1Even if the most recent Ngandong date estimate is H. erectus (Rightmire, 1990), whose correct (Swisher et al., 1996), and the oldest WLH-50 habitation on Java may have persisted estimate is correct (Caddie et al., 1987), Ngandong is older than WLH-50, and the Indonesian site may be well into the late Pleistocene (Swisher considerably older (Gru¨n & Thorne, 1997). et al., 1996). -50 3 The complete replacement hypothesis Table 1 Specimens in the comparative samples requires that there is a unique relationship Late Pleistocene between early modern humans, represented Ngandong Africans Levantines by the earlier Late Pleistocene Africans Levantines, and WLH-50, to the exclusion 1 Jebel Irhoud 1 Skhul 5 of more archaic hominids from Ngandong. 4* Jebel Irhoud 2 Skhul 9 We propose to test this complete replace- 5 Laetoli 18 Qafzeh 6 6 Omo 1* Qafzeh 9 ment hypothesis by demonstrating that one 9 Omo 2 or both of the above assertions must be 10 Singa incorrect. A recent African replacement 11 explanation of modern human origins in Australasia is incorrect if it could be shown *Used only in the nonmetric analysis. in a comparison of WLH-50 to earlier Late Pleistocene Africans, Levantines, and the Ngandong hominids from its ancestry. In Ngandong people that the closest relation- this case, replacement would be refuted as a ships are to Ngandong. This is because model for the ancestry of Australasia, and complete replacement predicts unique re- the Ngandong hominids must be accepted lationships between WLH-50 and the late as H. sapiens. Pleistocene Africans and individuals from Skhul/Qafzeh to the exclusion of Ngandong. Materials and methods Multiregional evolution, in contrast, views all three of these groups as potential Our fossil sample consists of the possible ancestors for WLH-50. Pleistocene ancestors for WLH-50 from the We have chosen two procedures to Levant, Africa and Indonesia, as described examine the relationship of WLH-50 to above. Seventeen crania from the earlier the African, Levantine, and Indonesian part of the Late Pleistocene were chosen for samples: comparison with WLH-50 (Table 1). We ( 1) A discriminant analysis of metric data assigned all fossils except for WLH-50 to which differentiates the Africans, one of three groups based on geography. Levantine, and Ngandong hominids These are the most complete crania from into three groups and can be used to this time period in these regions and include assess the group affinity of WLH-50, the specimens that preserve all or most of and the areas that are observable on WLH-50. ( 2) a pairwise difference analysis using Fragmentary specimens and specimens too non-metric data, comparing WLH-50 recent to be potential ancestors of WLH-50 with the individuals in these three were excluded from this study. The metric samples. variables were chosen to maximize the The prediction of the replacement model is number of measurements we could replicate that WLH-50 will sort with the Africans or in all the crania. The incomplete condition Levantines in both tests, since it must be of WLH-50 limited us to 21 variables, uniquely descended from these groups. If mostly standardized chords and arcs, which these procedures find that WLH-50 clusters could be accurately and repeatedly with Ngandong rather than with Africans measured. All of them were present on all or Levantines, then it must follow that crania, and no missing data were allowed for WLH-50 shares no special relationship with the discriminant analysis. Late Pleistocene hominids from Africa Four measurements of WLH-50 required and the Levant that would exclude the a reconstruction of the glabella region, 4 . ET AL. Table 2 Comparison of selected measurements different from Stringer’s, as addressed ff by di erent authors* for WLH-50 below. Stringer Brown All other measurements of fossil crania WLH-50 Measurement (1998) (1998) This were taken on the original specimens by one (in mm) value value study of us (MHW), with a small number of exceptions. A combination of published and Biasterionic breadth 123 127 123 cast measurements were used for Laetoli Biauricular breadth 138 138 Biparietal breadth 142 139 142 Hominid 18 (Magori & Day, 1983), and Bregma-asterion 151 151 150 Omo2(Day & Stringer, 1991).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Multiregional Origin of Modern Humans
    Multiregional origin of modern humans The multiregional hypothesis, multiregional evolution (MRE), or polycentric hypothesis is a scientific model that provides an alternative explanation to the more widely accepted "Out of Africa" model of monogenesis for the pattern of human evolution. Multiregional evolution holds that the human species first arose around two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses all archaic human forms such as H. erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). The hypothesis contends that the mechanism of clinal variation through a model of "Centre and Edge" allowed for the necessary balance between genetic drift, gene flow and selection throughout the Pleistocene, as well as overall evolution as a global species, but while retaining regional differences in certain morphological A graph detailing the evolution to modern humans features.[1] Proponents of multiregionalism point to fossil and using the multiregional hypothesis ofhuman genomic data and continuity of archaeological cultures as support for evolution. The horizontal lines represent their hypothesis. 'multiregional evolution' gene flow between regional lineages. In Weidenreich's original graphic The multiregional hypothesis was first proposed in 1984, and then (which is more accurate than this one), there were also diagonal lines between the populations, e.g. revised in 2003. In its revised form, it is similar to the Assimilation between African H. erectus and Archaic Asians Model.[2] and between Asian H. erectus and Archaic Africans. This created a "trellis" (as Wolpoff called it) or a "network" that emphasized gene flow between geographic regions and within time.
    [Show full text]
  • A 150-Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on The
    SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research International Journal of Evolutionary Biology Volume 2011, Article ID 632484, 18 pages doi:10.4061/2011/632484 Research Article A 150- Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on the Origin of Aboriginal Australians Darren Curnoe School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Correspondence should be addressed to Darren Curnoe, [email protected] Received 15 October 2010; Accepted 16 December 2010 Academic Editor: Bing Su Copyright © 2011 Darren Curnoe. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The origin of Aboriginal Australians has been a central question of palaeoanthropology since its inception during the 19th Century. Moreover, the idea that Australians could trace their ancestry to a non-modern Pleistocene population such as Homo erectus in Southeast Asia have existed for more than 100 years, being explicitly linked to cranial robusticity. It is argued here that in order to resolve this issue a new program of research should be embraced, one aiming to test the full range of alternative explanations for robust morphology. Recent developments in the morphological sciences, especially relating to the ontogeny of the cranium indicate that character atomisation, an approach underpinning phylogenetic reconstruction, is fraught with difficulties. This leads to the conclusion that phylogenetic-based explanations for robusticity should be reconsidered and a more parsimonious approach to explaining Aboriginal Australian origins taken. One that takes proper account of the complex processes involved in the growth of the human cranium rather than just assuming natural selection to explain every subtle variation seen in past populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Stegodonts and the Dating of Stone Tool Assemblages in Island Southeast Asia
    Stegodonts and the Dating of Stone Tool Assemblages in Island Southeast Asia HARRY ALLEN KNOWLEDGE OF Southeast Asian prehistory until recently was organized into a sys­ tem of stages rigidly defined in terms of artifact technology, human type, and geol­ ogical epoch. The fit between human types, artifacts, and geological ages was thought to be so close that a find of any diagnostic artifact type or fossil was suf­ ficient to automatically decide the chronological age and technological period as well (see Table 1). The results of archaeological surveys by Bartstra (1978a, 1978b, 1982) and Bart­ stra et al. (1976, 1988) have shaken belief in the association of Homo erectus with Pacitanian-like large-core tool industries. Similarly the appropriateness of the terms Mesolithic and Palaeolithic for Southeast Asia has been questioned (cf. Hutterer 1977). Despite these new results, however, the older interpretive framework of a close connection between geological age, human type, and technological stage has simply been replaced by a revised version (Table 2). Foley (1987) has argued that co variation between hominid fossil morphology and artifact variability is an essential starting point for understanding the evolution of human behavior. Without denying the eventual demonstration of such a covaria­ tion, it must be stated that premature conclusions along these lines have proved damaging for Southeast Asian archaeology. In any case, in Southeast Asia conclu­ sions about relationships between technology and hominid type are bedeviled by a lack of consensus about the taxonomic status of certain of the fossils, in particular the N gandong crania. The taxonomic relationships of the Asian and Australian hominid fossils are cur­ rently under debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Gordon Thorne 1939–2012
    Alan Gordon Thorne 1939–2012 COLIN GROVES School of Archaeology and Anthropology, AD Hope Building #14, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, AUSTRALIA; [email protected] OBITUARY Alan Thorne, Australia’s leading paleoanthropologist, died of Alzheimer’s in June, 2012. AL Alan Thorne in 1999 (photograph by Maggie Brady). hen he was 18, Alan became a reporter for one of Sydney University that he was asked to go to Melbourne WAustralia’s most widely read newspapers, the Syd- to make a catalogue of the human skeletal collection of the ney Morning Herald, which in those days had a policy of National Museum of Victoria. In the course of examining sending many of its young reporters to get an arts degree at and cataloguing the collection there, he discovered a box of Sydney University. Here, Alan graduated in Zoology and unregistered bones, including some evidently mineralised Anthropology, and came under the influence of the char- skull fragments of very unusual form and exceptional ismatic Professor of Anatomy, “Black Mac” Macintosh, thickness. In the box was a small black-edged card bear- who inculcated in him a passion for paleoanthropology, in ing the words “Bendigo Police” in black felt pen. He made which he took a Master’s degree and in which he then en- enquiries, and found that such black-edged cards had been rolled for a Ph.D. During his period in Sydney, he rapidly issued to the Bendigo police after the death of King George acquired great expertise in osteology and general anatomy, VI in 1952, and that the supply had run out in 1962; while and Macintosh held him in high regard and got him to do felt-tipped pens had first been issued to police officers in some teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • WLH 50: How Australia Informs the Worldwide Pattern of Pleistocene Human Evolution
    WLH 50: How Australia Informs the Worldwide Pattern of Pleistocene Human Evolution MILFORD H WOLPOFF Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092, USA; [email protected] SANG-HEE LEE Department of Anthropology, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0418, USA; [email protected] submitted: 15 July 2013; accepted 9 September 2014 MONOGRAPH CONTENTS Abstract 506 Introduction 506 Background 508 Weidenreich 509 New Fossils, New Details 510 Migration versus Sources 511 Was There a Single Source Population? 513 The Simplest Origins Hypothesis 514 WLH 50 514 Goal of the Description and Analysis 514 Pathology or Artificial Deformation as Explanations for the Anatomy of WLH 50 517 Adaptive Explanations 517 Age or Size Related Ruggedness 517 Artificial Deformation of WLH 50—A Red Herring 517 Pathological Explanation for Cranial Thickness 519 Allometry 520 No Compelling Explanations Replace Ancestry 520 Description of WLH 50 and Comparison with Ngandong Sample 520 Condition and Preservation 520 Vault as a Whole 521 Cranial Bone Thickness 528 Frontal Bone 530 Supraorbital Region 530 Internal Surface 534 Parietal Bones 536 Temporal Bones 538 Occipital 540 Zygomatic Bone 541 Statistical Approaches 542 Discriminant Analysis of Metric Data 543 Pairwise Difference Analysis Using Non-Metric Data 545 STET (STandard Error Test) 545 Standard Error of the Regression Slope 547 Does STET “Work”? 547 STET Analysis 548 How Similar is WLH 50 to Ngandong and to the African Sample? 550 Summary of Results From the Statistical Approaches 551 In Some Tests Reported Above, WLH 50 is Most like the Ngandong Sample 551 In Other Tests, the Hypothesis of Multiple Ancestry (Africans and Ngandong) for WLH 50 Cannot be Rejected 551 PaleoAnthropology 2014: 505−564.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Gordon Thorne
    2012 ANNUAL REPORT THE AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF THE HUMANITIES 43 Alan Gordon Thorne 19 3 9 - 2 012 It was common in those days for the Sydney Morning Herald to send its young cadets to get Arts degrees at Sydney University, and this they did in Alan’s case (in 1960). He majored in Zoology and Anthropology, and became especially interested in reptiles, in which he thought he would probably specialise, but then he discovered the Department of Anatomy and its indomitable Professor N.W.G. Macintosh, known as Black Mac, who was passionately interested in human origins and evolution and transmitted this passion to Alan. Alan went on to take a Master’s degree and then went on to study for a PhD; at the same time Alan took up a lectureship in the Anatomy Department, which he held until 1969 when he obtained a Research Fellowship (free of teaching responsibilities) in what was then called the Archaeology Department in the Institute of Advanced Studies (now the Department of Archaeology and Natural History, in the College of Asia and the Pacific) at the Australian National University (ANU), where he remained, as a Senior Fellow, until his retirement. His Sydney University PhD was awarded in 1975, early in his tenure at the ANU. It was in 1967, while still at Sydney University, that Alan scored his first academic coup, a result of the same Photo: Courtesy of Maggie Brady Sherlock Holmes qualities that he had displayed at the Herald. He was invited by the Director and Trustees of the National Museum of Victoria to go through their human skeletal material collection and produce an ALA N Thorne was born in Neutral Bay, Sydney, on annotated card index.
    [Show full text]
  • A 150-Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on The
    SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research International Journal of Evolutionary Biology Volume 2011, Article ID 632484, 18 pages doi:10.4061/2011/632484 Research Article A 150- Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on the Origin of Aboriginal Australians Darren Curnoe School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Correspondence should be addressed to Darren Curnoe, [email protected] Received 15 October 2010; Accepted 16 December 2010 Academic Editor: Bing Su Copyright © 2011 Darren Curnoe. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The origin of Aboriginal Australians has been a central question of palaeoanthropology since its inception during the 19th Century. Moreover, the idea that Australians could trace their ancestry to a non-modern Pleistocene population such as Homo erectus in Southeast Asia have existed for more than 100 years, being explicitly linked to cranial robusticity. It is argued here that in order to resolve this issue a new program of research should be embraced, one aiming to test the full range of alternative explanations for robust morphology. Recent developments in the morphological sciences, especially relating to the ontogeny of the cranium indicate that character atomisation, an approach underpinning phylogenetic reconstruction, is fraught with difficulties. This leads to the conclusion that phylogenetic-based explanations for robusticity should be reconsidered and a more parsimonious approach to explaining Aboriginal Australian origins taken. One that takes proper account of the complex processes involved in the growth of the human cranium rather than just assuming natural selection to explain every subtle variation seen in past populations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Modern Humans the Origins of Modern Humans Biology Reconsidered
    The Origins of Modern Humans The Origins of Modern Humans Biology Reconsidered Edited by Fred H. Smith and James C. M. Ahern Copyright © 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved First Edition © 1984 Alan R. Liss Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation.
    [Show full text]