The Multiregional Model of modern human origins predicts that a group of features, recognized as characterizing the evolution of regional populations from their archaic regional ancestors, will consistently show higher incidence in those... more
The Multiregional Model of modern human origins predicts that a group of features, recognized as characterizing the evolution of regional populations from their archaic regional ancestors, will consistently show higher incidence in those regions. This model also predicts that regional morphological patterns are stable, reflecting absence of geographical isolation. In order to test these assumptions, the incidence and distribution of the regional features proposed to characterize the evolution of Chinese and Javanese Homo erectus into modern Chinese and Australian aborigines respectively were examined. The material studied were five recent populations and a fossil sample of anatomically modern Homo sapiens from the sites of Afalou and Taforalt. For this, a scoring system of grades was developed, so as to allow quantification and statistical testing. These analyses showed first, that although the majority of the features studied present a regional pattern, this pattern does not always correspond to that proposed by the model; and second, that some of these features occur in other populations with a higher frequency. Furthermore, the lack of special resemblance betwen the North African fossils and recent Africans suggest high levels of population differentiation. These results indicate that these features do not support a multiregional origin, giving further support to the existing fossil, chronological and genetic evidence for a single African origin of all modern humans.
Recent revelations that human genomes contain DNA introgressed through interbreeding with archaic populations outside of Africa have led to reassessments of models for the origins of our species. The fact that small portions of the DNA of... more
Recent revelations that human genomes contain DNA introgressed through interbreeding with archaic populations outside of Africa have led to reassessments of models for the origins of our species. The fact that small portions of the DNA of recent Homo sapiens derive from ancient populations in more than one region of the world makes our origins ‘multiregional’, but does that mean that the multiregional model of modern human origins has been proved correct? The extent of archaic assimilation in living humans remains modest, and fossil evidence outside of Africa shows little sign of the long-term morphological continuity through to recent humans expected from the multiregional model. Thus, rather than multiregionalism, a recent African origin (RAO) model for modern humans is still supported by the data.
Archeological models always start with a “Peopling” of the New World (PNW)” leaving untested the significance and human evolutionary implications of not just contemporary Upper Paleolithic but even earlier occupations of the Americas... more
Archeological models always start with a “Peopling” of the New World (PNW)” leaving untested the significance and human evolutionary implications of not just contemporary Upper Paleolithic but even earlier occupations of the Americas (Holen 2015: Leakey and Simpson 1968 , Morlan 1987; Goodyear et al .; Dziebel 2007 ; Boëda et al. 2021; the Valsequilo Valley of Mexico dated by multiple methods to 250,000 and many many others …). The “Peopling of the Old World (POW)” accompanying the sudden inter-continental arrival of “Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss)” could and should find contrasts that PNW and POW human dispersals are linked. To not-do-so underscores the profound achievements of these inter-hemispherical colonists and human ties linking the Earths two Worlds. Replacement theories from the Old World have yet to contemplate Paleoamericans as a source for the species doing the replacing. A theoretical inclusion of the New World as an evolutionary source for the dispersal of modern man into Asia, Australia, Europe, and Africa starts with the critical assumption of “Replacement.” American ‘early’ “early Man Sites” once drawn asunder by unsubstantiated anthropologic denials are now relevant including Monte Verde I dated at 33,000 and earlier New World Pleistocene sites pre-dating the dawning of the “initial Upper Paleolithic in Southern Siberia.” Comparisons drawn from distinguishable New World archaeological evidence suggests isolation from developing Upper Paleolithic like adaptations dating ~ 45,000 years ago in the Old World. Glacial caused isolation has here-in been predicted as the basis for the perpetuation of an unexpected Paleoamerican mid-Pleistocene archaeological life-way that - however unfortunate for Archaeologists - can be argued as demonstrative of a basal aboriginal pre-Clovis Human archetype. No other explanation compliments the behavioral stigmatization that makes these human habitations so backwards when focusing on the Old-Worlds readily diagnostic Middle and Upper Paleolithic signatures. In-order to augment the genetic data in our favor we must be able to rejuvenate the archaeological facts that offer hand-held evidences that do not require biological timetables. This, however, does not underscore the genetic significance of determining the phylogenetic pathway we are about to investigate! Key words: Replacement theory, Paleoamericans, Out of Asia, mtDNA and Y Chromosome, Bayesian prior joint and posterior probability theory, maximum-likelihood theory, statistical inference, ascertainment bias.
