DOCSLIB.ORG

Multiregional Origin of Modern Humans

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. It is Contents important to remember that the populations on the History chart are not discrete – i.e., they do not represent Overview different species, but are samples within a long "Classic" vs "weak" multiregionalism lineage experiencing extensive gene flow. Genetic studies Fossil evidence Morphological clades Indonesia, Australia China Europe Genetic evidence Mitochondrial Eve Neanderthal mtDNA Nuclear DNA Ancient DNA Recent African origin See also References Further reading External links History Overview Hominin timeline 0 — The Multiregional hypothesis was proposed in 1984 by ←Modern humans P Neanderthals Homo sapiens ←Modern speech Milford H. Wolpoff, Alan Thorne and Xinzhi Wu.[3][4][1] – l H. heidelbergensis ←Earliest clothes e Wolpoff credits Franz Weidenreich's "Polycentric" ←Earliest cooking -1 — i hypothesis of human origins as a major influence, but s Homo erectus – t ←Earliest fire use cautions that this should not be confused with polygenism, o ←Exit from Africa or Carleton Coon's model that minimized gene -2 — c e flow.[4][5][6] According to Wolpoff, multiregionalism was Homo habilis – n misinterpreted by William W. Howells, who confused e Weidenreich's hypothesis with a polygenic "candelabra -3 — ←Stone tools model" in his publications spanning five decades: – Australopithecus P -4 — l ←Earliest bipedal How did Multiregional evolution get i Ardipithecus stigmatized as polygeny? We believe it – o H c comes from the confusion of Weidenreich's -5 — e o ideas, and ultimately of our own, with n – e Hominini m Coon's. The historic reason for linking ←Chimpanzee split Coon's and Weidenreich's ideas came from -6 — Orrorin i the mischaracterizations of Weidenreich's – n Polycentric model as a candelabra i (Howells, 1942, 1944, 1959, 1993), that -7 — M Sahelanthropus ←Possibly bipedal i made his Polycentric model appear much d – o more similar to Coon's than it actually c s -8 — e was.[7] n – e Through the influence of Howells, many other -9 — Ouranopithecus ←Gorilla split anthropologists and biologists have confused – multiregionalism with polygenism i.e. separate or multiple Nakalipithecus -10 — ←Earlier apes origins for different populations. Alan Templeton for Axis scale: million years example notes that this confusion has led to the error that Also see: Life timeline and Nature timeline gene flow between different populations was added to the Multiregional hypothesis as a "special pleading in response to recent difficulties", despite the fact: "parallel evolution Ice Ages Life timeline was never part of the multiregional model, much less its 0 — Quaternary Primates ←Earliest apes core, whereas gene flow was not a recent addition, but P Flowers Birds Mammals h rather was present in the model from the very – Dinosaurs Paleozoic a Plants n ← beginning"[8] (emphasis in original). Despite this, Andean Tetrapoda -500 — e Arthropods and Molluscs multiregionalism is still confused with polygenism, or r ←Cambrian explosion Cryogenian o ←Ediacaran biota Coon's model of racial origins, from which Wolpoff and – z o ←Earliest plants his colleagues have distanced themselves.[9][10] Wolpoff i -1000 — c Multicellular life has also defended Wiedenreich's Polycentric hypothesis ←Sexual from being labeled polyphyletic. Weidenreich himself in – reproduction P r -1500 — o -1500 — o 1949 wrote: "I may run the risk of being misunderstood, t – e namely that I believe in polyphyletic evolution of r Eukaryotes o man".[11] z -2000 — o In 1998, Wu founded a China-specific Multiregional Huronian – i c ←Oxygen crisis model called "Continuity with [Incidental] -2500 — ←Atmospheric oxygen Hybridization".[12][13] Wu's variant only applies the Multiregional hypothesis to the East Asian fossil record – photosynthesis Pongola which is popular among Chinese scientists.[14] However, -3000 — A James Leibold a political historian of modern China has r c argued the support for Wu's model is largely rooted in – h [15] e Chinese nationalism. Outside of China, the a -3500 — ← Multiregional hypothesis has limited support, held only by n Earliest oxygen [16] a small number of paleoanthropologists. – Single-celled life -4000 — ←Earliest life H "Classic" vs "weak" multiregionalism a water – d Chris Stringer, a leading proponent of the more e a ←Earliest water mainstream recent African origin theory, debated -4500 — n ←Earth (−4540) Axis scale: million years Multiregionalists such as Wolpoff and Thorne in a series of Also see: Human timeline and Nature timeline publications throughout the late 1980s and 1990s.[17][18][19][20] Stringer describes how he considers the original Multiregional hypothesis to have been modified over time into a weaker variant that now allows a much greater role for Africa in human evolution, includinganatomical modernity (and subsequently less regional continuity than was first proposed).[21] Stringer distinguishes the original or "classic" Multiregional model as having existed from 1984 (its formulation) until 2003, to a "weak" post-2003 variant that has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".[22][23] Genetic studies The finding that "Mitochondrial Eve" was relatively recent and African seemed to give the upper hand to the proponents of the Out of Africa hypothesis. But in 2002, Alan Templeton published a genetic analysis involving other loci in the genome as well, and this showed that some variants that are present in modern populations existed already in Asia hundreds of thousands of years ago.[24] This meant that even if our male line (Y chromosome) and our female line (mitochondrial DNA) came out of Africa in the last 100,000 years or so, we have inherited other genes from populations that were already outside of Africa. Since this study other studies have been done using much more data (seePhylogeography ). Fossil evidence Morphological clades Proponents of the multiregional hypothesis see regional continuity of certain morphological traits spanning the Pleistocene in different regions across the globe as evidence against a single replacement model from Africa. In general, three major regions are recognized: Europe, China, and Indonesia (often including Australia).[25][26][27] Wolpoff cautions that the continuity in certain skeletal features in these regions should not be seen in a racial context, instead calling them morphological clades; defined as sets of traits that "uniquely characterise a geographic region".[28] According to Wolpoff and Thorne (1981): "We do not regard a morphological clade as a unique lineage, nor do we believe it necessary to imply a particular taxonomic status for it".[29] Critics of multiregionalism have pointed out that no single human trait is unique to a geographical region (i.e. confined to one population and not found in any other) but Wolpoff et al. (2000) note that regional continuity only recognizes combinations of features, not traits if individually accessed, a point they elsewhere compare to the forensic identification of a human skeleton: Regional continuity... is not the claim that such features do not appear elsewhere; the genetic structure of the human species makes such a possibility unlikely to the extreme. There may be uniqueness in combinations of traits, but no single trait is likely to have been unique in a particular part of the world although it might appear to be so because of the incomplete sampling provided by the spotty human fossil record. Replica of Sangiran 17 Homo Combinations of features are "unique" in the sense of being found in only one region, or erectus skull from Indonesia more weakly limited to one region at high frequency (very rarely in another). Wolpoff showing obtuse face to vault stresses that regional continuity works
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curren T Anthropology
    Forthcoming Current Anthropology Wenner-Gren Symposium Curren Supplementary Issues (in order of appearance) t Human Biology and the Origins of Homo. Susan Antón and Leslie C. Aiello, Anthropolog Current eds. e Anthropology of Potentiality: Exploring the Productivity of the Undened and Its Interplay with Notions of Humanness in New Medical Anthropology Practices. Karen-Sue Taussig and Klaus Hoeyer, eds. y THE WENNER-GREN SYMPOSIUM SERIES Previously Published Supplementary Issues April THE BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF LIVING HUMAN Working Memory: Beyond Language and Symbolism. omas Wynn and 2 POPULATIONS: WORLD HISTORIES, NATIONAL STYLES, 01 Frederick L. Coolidge, eds. 2 AND INTERNATIONAL NETWORKS Engaged Anthropology: Diversity and Dilemmas. Setha M. Low and Sally GUEST EDITORS: SUSAN LINDEE AND RICARDO VENTURA SANTOS Engle Merry, eds. V The Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations olum Corporate Lives: New Perspectives on the Social Life of the Corporate Form. Contexts and Trajectories of Physical Anthropology in Brazil Damani Partridge, Marina Welker, and Rebecca Hardin, eds. e Birth of Physical Anthropology in Late Imperial Portugal 5 Norwegian Physical Anthropology and a Nordic Master Race T. Douglas Price and Ofer 3 e Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas. The Ainu and the Search for the Origins of the Japanese Bar-Yosef, eds. Isolates and Crosses in Human Population Genetics Supplement Practicing Anthropology in the French Colonial Empire, 1880–1960 Physical Anthropology in the Colonial Laboratories of the United States Humanizing Evolution Human Population Biology in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century Internationalizing Physical Anthropology 5 Biological Anthropology at the Southern Tip of Africa The Origins of Anthropological Genetics Current Anthropology is sponsored by e Beyond the Cephalic Index Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Anthropology and Personal Genomics Research, a foundation endowed for scientific, Biohistorical Narratives of Racial Difference in the American Negro educational, and charitable purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Asian and Australian Paleoanthropology: a Review of the Last Century
    JASs Invited Reviews Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 87 (2009), pp. 7-31 Southeast Asian and Australian paleoanthropology: a review of the last century Arthur C. Durband Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, MS 41012 Holden Hall 158, Lubbock, TX 79409-1012, USA e-mail: [email protected] Summary - A large and diverse body of scholarship has been developed around the fossil evidence discovered in Southeast Asia and Australia. However, despite its importance to many diff erent aspects of paleoanthropological research, Australasia has often received signifi cantly less attention than it deserves. is review will focus primarily on the evidence for the origins of modern humans from this region. Workers like Franz Weidenreich identifi ed characteristics in the earliest inhabitants of Java that bore some resemblance to features found in modern indigenous Australians. More recent work by numerous scholars have built upon those initial observations, and have contributed to the perception that the fossil record of Australasia provides one of the better examples of regional continuity in the human fossil record. Other scholars disagree, instead fi nding evidence for discontinuity between these earliest Indonesians and modern Australian groups. ese authorities cite support for an alternative hypothesis of extinction of the ancient Javan populations and their subsequent replacement by more recently arrived groups of modern humans. Presently, the bulk of the evidence supports this latter model. A dearth of credible regional characteristics linking the Pleistocene fossils from Java to early Australians, combined with a series of features indicating discontinuity between those same groups, indicate that the populations represented by the fossils from Sangiran and Ngandong went extinct without contributing genes to modern Australians.
    [Show full text]
  • F24 Out-Of-Africa and Multiregional Hypotheses
    348 Chapter f THE AGE OF MAMMALS The Present is the Key to the Past: HUGH RANCE f24 Out-of-Africa and multiregional hypotheses < Y chromosomal DNA, molecular Adam > I against my brother. My brother and I against our cousin. My brother, my cousin and I against the neighbors. All of us against the stranger. —Bedouin proverb.1 Discussion as to the origin of modern humans is divisive, with some participants favoring the out-of- Africa hypothesis, to explain the existence of, and others favoring the multiregional hypothesis, to explain the coming into being of, people anatomically and mentally like us. Today, most individuals of the nearly seven billion people on Earth have four (22) grandparents, eight (23) great-grandparents all not closely related when born. Going back this geometric progression cannot be true and kissing cousins (reproductive success attends couples who are 3rd or 4th cousins)2 in ancestors will have been an increasing feature so that, according to Damifin H. Zanette, all living people probably share at least one ancestor who lived 30 generations ago.3 That is, the chances are that you are 80 percent likely to be the descendant of anyone you care to name who lived in the thirteenth century (which ended by such as Marco Polo and his family to China, Bantu-speaking peoples arriving in what is now Angola, and had begun with the Fourth Crusade sacking of Byzantine Constantinople). The other 20 percent of the people who lived then have no living descendants. For 100,000 years before the Holocene, the entire human population of the world, as is variously evidenced, was never more than a few thousand individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY VERSION 1 COLLEGE of the CANYONS COLLEGE Physical Anthropology
    ANTH 101 PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY VERSION 1 COLLEGE OF THE CANYONS COLLEGE Physical Anthropology An Open Educational Resources Publication by Taft College Authored and compiled by Sarah Etheredge Editor: Trudi Radtke Version 2 2019 1 | Physical Anthropology – College of the Canyons Acknowledgements We would like to extend appreciation to the following people and organizations for allowing this textbook to be created: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Chancellor Dianne G. Van Hook Santa Clarita Community College District College of the Canyons Distance Learning Office Written & Compiled by: Sarah Etheredge Special Thank You to Editor Trudi Radtke for formatting, readability, and aesthetics. Disclaimer: “The contents of this (insert type of publication; e.g., report, flyer, etc.) were developed under the Title V grant from the Department of Education (Award #P031S140092). However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.” *Unless otherwise noted, the content in this textbook is licensed under CC BY 4.0 2 | Physical Anthropology – College of the Canyons Table of Contents Physical Anthropology .................................................................................................................................. 1 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bioarcheology of China
    Chapter 3 Bioarchaeology of China: Bridging Biological and Archaeological Inquiries Elizabeth Berger and Kate Pechenkina In China, anthropology (人类学 renleixue, literally “study of humanity”) is primar- ily used to refer to physical anthropology. Biological or physical anthropology is firmly situated within the biological disciplines, whereas archaeology is tradition- ally hosted by history departments. Consequent differences in research interests and approaches between archaeologists and biological anthropologists have influenced the development of the field. Research on archaeological human skeletons, and anthropology as a whole, in China can be divided into three historical phases: (1) the late 1800s to 1949, the formative period, when anthropology in China was practiced as a holistic discipline and biological anthropology research was dominated by comparative morphomet- rics, population history, and paleoanthropology; (2) 1949 to the early 1980s, when “anthropology” referred almost exclusively to physical anthropology, and morpho- metrics and paleoanthropology were independent of archaeology; and (3) the 1980s until today, when cultural anthropology has experienced a renewal and bioarchaeol- ogy has come to integrate the skeletal and archaeological records (Zhang 2012; Zhu 2004; Hu 2006; Guldin 1994). In its early years (before 1949), Chinese anthropology was in close communica- tion with American, British, and European scholarship. However, it also draws from a long tradition of Chinese historiography, antiquarianism, and medical stud- ies and has undergone more than 100 years of development within China to become a discipline with its own research foci and disciplinary boundaries (Guldin 1994; Hu 2006). E. Berger Lieberthal-Rogel Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Anthropology
    Forthcoming Current Anthropology Wenner-Gren Symposium Current Anthropology Supplementary Issues (in order of appearance) Current VOLUME 58 SUPPLEMENT 17 DECEMBER 2017 The Anthropology of Corruption. Sarah Muir and Akhil Gupta, eds. Cultures of Militarism. Catherine Besteman and Hugh Gusterson, eds. Patchy Anthropocene. Anna Tsing, Nils Bubandt, and Andrew Mathews, eds. Anthropology Previously Published Supplementary Issues Engaged Anthropology: Diversity and Dilemmas. Setha M. Low and Sally Engle Merry, eds. THE WENNER-GREN SYMPOSIUM SERIES Corporate Lives: New Perspectives on the Social Life of the Corporate Form. December 2017 Damani Partridge, Marina Welker, and Rebecca Hardin, eds. The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas. T. Douglas Price and HUMAN COLONIZATION OF ASIA IN THE LATE PLEISTOCENE Ofer Bar-Yosef, eds. GUEST EDITORS: CHRISTOPHER J. BAE, KATERINA DOUKA, The Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World Histories, AND MICHAEL D. PETRAGLIA National Styles, and International Networks. Susan Lindee and Ricardo Ventura Santos, eds. Human Colonization of Asia in the Late Pleistocene Human Biology and the Origins of Homo. Susan Antón and Leslie C. Aiello, eds. Human Colonization of Asia in the Late Pleistocene: The History of an Invasive Species Potentiality and Humanness: Revisiting the Anthropological Object in 58 Volume A Genomic View of the Pleistocene Population History of Asia Contemporary Biomedicine. Klaus Hoeyer and Karen-Sue Taussig, eds. Testing Modern Human Out-of-Africa Dispersal Models Using Dental Nonmetric Data Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary Trajectories in the Middle Archaic Hominin Populations in Asia before the Arrival of Modern Humans: Their Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Steven L. Kuhn and Erella Hovers, eds.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Twentieth Century Paleoanthropology: a Bibliographic Survey
    History of Anthropology Newsletter Volume 27 Issue 2 December 2000 Article 5 1-1-2000 History of Twentieth Century Paleoanthropology: A Bibliographic Survey Mathew R. Goodrum Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Goodrum, Mathew R. (2000) "History of Twentieth Century Paleoanthropology: A Bibliographic Survey," History of Anthropology Newsletter: Vol. 27 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol27/iss2/5 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol27/iss2/5 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Margarita Diaz-Andreu (Archaeology, University of Durham) who has for some time been carrying on research in the historiography and history of archaeology, especially in Spain, but also in Latin-America and elsewhere (cf. below, "Suggested by our Readers") is currently working on 19th century connections between prehistory and anthropology, including the International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology Judy Daubenmier (graduate student, American History, University of Michigan) is doing a dissertation on Sol Tax and the action anthropology project at the Meskwaki settlement near Tama, Iowa She would like to hear from former participants in the project and may be reached via e-mail at [email protected]. Matthew R. Goodrum ([email protected]) is working on the history of the idea of prehistory and the early study of the origin and early state of humans by scientists and natural philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries, and has recently presented a paper entitled "Establishing a Place for the History of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology within the History of Science." Frank Salamone (fsalmone@ionaedu) has been awarded a grant by the American Philosophical Society to examine the impact of Franz Boas on current epistemological issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature
    Detecting Lehi’s Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not? David A. McClellan he influence genetics and genetic information have had on the Toverall body of scientific knowledge cannot be overestimated. Genetic research has substantively enhanced our ability to treat medical conditions ranging from inherited genetic disorders to worldwide viral epidemics. It has revolutionized the way we think about and study the natural world, from cells to organisms, from species to ecosystems. It factors into pharmaceutical discovery and vaccine design, plant and animal domestication, and wildlife con- servation. Needless to say, we now know much more about genetic concepts and applications than in even the recent past. In fact, our body of knowledge has grown so vast that mastery of all aspects of genetic research by a single researcher is now virtually impossible. For this very reason, minor misunderstandings abound, both among the lay public and within the scientific community. One such misunderstanding is the current controversy over DNA evidence and its bearing on the veracity of the Book of Mormon. On the one hand, statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith indicate that Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites. On the other, recent scientific studies have evaluated the current ge- netic compositions of selected worldwide human populations, and several of these have concluded that the principal genetic origin of the sampled Native American peoples has been Asiatic, likely due to the constant documented flow of humans back and forth across the Bering Strait.1 The real issue, however, is not necessarily if Native Americans are the inheritors of Asian genetic material; it is whether 100 The Book of Mormon and DNA Research or not this evidence refutes the story line of the Book of Mormon and the claims of Joseph Smith relative to Native Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Biological Realism About Race: from Darwin to the Post-Genomic Era
    The Case against Biological Realism about Race: From Darwin to the Post-Genomic Era Kofª N. Maglo University of Cincinnati This paper examines the claim that human variation reºects the existence of biologically real human races. It analyzes various concepts of race, including conceptions of race as a breeding population, continental cluster and ancestral line of descent, or clade. It argues that race functions, in contemporary hu- man population genetics, more like a convenient instrumental concept than bi- ological category for picking out subspeciªc evolutionary kinds. It shows that the rise of genomics most likely provided opponents of the biological reality of human races with at least as much ammunition as that of their counterparts the race realists. The paper also suggests that the roots of the current epistemic landscape of the debate can be traced back to Darwin’s essay on The Descent of Man. [T]he races of man are not sufªciently distinct to inhabit the same country without fusion; and the absence of fusion affords the usual and best test of speciªc distinctiveness. (Charles Darwin [1871] 2004, p. 202) The subspecies is merely a strictly utilitarian classiªcatory device for the pigeonholing of population samples. (Ernst Mayr 1954, p. 87) Introduction Did human evolutionary history lead to a natural division of our species into subspecies, the so-called biological human races? The issue seemed to This paper and the previous one (Maglo 2010) grew out of an earlier version I presented at a roundtable on genetics and race at Harvard University in 2004, at the Annual Meeting of the American College of Epidemiology in Boston in 2004, and also at MIT in 2004 in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS).
    [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]