Trevor Kitchen Anthropology April 26, 2014

! !

Theories of Modern Human Origins

!
Regional Continuity verses Replacement
Currently in anthropology, there are two main theories of modern human origins. The rst one is called the replacement model, also known as the Eve theory. The other is the regional continuity model, also known as be at multi generational evolution theory. Despite the fact that these theories are trying to explain the same phenomenon. They have very distinct and different explanations as to how modern humans came into existence. The rst one we will discuss is the regional continuity model. "Milford H Wolpoff, Wu, and Thorne in 1984 (1)" came up with this theory to explain how modern humans came into existence. He denies that modern humans rst evolved from Africa. Instead there were regions of subspecies of Homo sapiens which existed in Asia, Europe and Africa. These colonies of Homo sapiens subspecies evolved roughly at the same time. It also minimizes the importance of gene ow and migration in the evolutionary process. "The hypothesis began as an explanation for the observations that some of the features distinguishing major human groups, such as Asians, Australian Aborigines, or Europeans, evolved over a long period in approximately the same geographic regions where these traits are found in their highest frequency (1)." "Some paleontologists argue that the human fossil record provides evidence of regional continuity throughout the Pleistocene in various parts of the Old World. Morphological features of later populations are held to resemble morphological features of earlier populations within the

THEORIES OF MODERN HUMAN ORIGINS

!1

same region. This view is disputed by others, who see evidence for a replacement of archaic populations by a population of modern humans that expanded throughout the world some 50,000 years ago (3)." Using fossil records we can show that either viewpoint would be a valid viewpoint. We have fossil records that lean toward replacement, and we have fossil records that lean towards regional continuity. However, "the complete replacement model requires a unique relation between the early modern humans at these two peripheries and the earlier Levantines and/or Africans regarded as modern humans. If evidence shows signicant local ancestry for the peripheral samples, complete replacement must be wrong (2)." According to this the regional continuity model has the upper hand in proving its legitimacy. When looking at the archaeological evidence we see that the regional continuity model has the upper hand. We have evidence that in areas such as northern China the hunter gatherers inhabited the land for around 500,000 years. The inhabitants of these areas formed a closely related culture, had a good knowledge of the surrounding resources, as well as the seasons and how to use that in favor of their environment. With this in mind, it is very unlikely that a group of African inhabitants traveled from their known culture, and environment, and overtook these locals. The technological advancements of that time would not have been signicant enough to give them the upper hand. The locals would've had a great advantage over the invaders because of their knowledge of the environment and their surroundings. The only possible way the invaders would have had an advantage over the locals is if they had a signicantly higher intellect and problem-solving skills than the locals did at that time. The other theory is known as the replacement model. This theory was proposed by Stoneking and Cann in 1989(1). Their explanation is that between 50,000 and 500,000 years ago, the ancestors of modern humans all originated in one place, Africa. There's even evidence

THEORIES OF MODERN HUMAN ORIGINS

!2

that all of our genetic data can be traced back to a single African female. Over the short 50,000 years the population that came from this woman expanded and spread across the land. They either exterminated all of the other pre-existing hunter gatherers in Africa, or they were better at survival, thus out competing their competition. The replacement model is very dependent on mtDNA. "there are some biochemist that believe the evolutionary record of this extranuclear organelle can be traced back to a single female, the putative Eve(1)." In the study of the mtDNA, only mtDNA that can be traced to Eve is found among living people today. We cannot nd any mtDNA for any of the contemporary hunter-gatherers that existed at that time. This implies that as the modern humans, that originated in Africa, began to expand they would eliminate or outcompete all of the other modern human-like organisms. As they did this they did not mix with these organisms. This is not a common behavior of organisms who invade other territories. It is more common for the invaders to nd the ideal mates or prizes and include them in their group. However the data is very clear that the mtDNA says that there is only one lineage from a single origin tracing back to Africa. There is a common ground between the two theories. They both agree that genetic variation is very important in the creation of modern humans. They both except mtDNA as a strong conrmation that all human beings are closely related. They also both agree that Eve did in fact exist, and she lived about 200,000 years ago. Both viewpoints also point to Africa as the original source of humanity despite one believes it is the sole source and the other believes it is one of the sources. I think that each theory has something to offer. I have a very difcult time choosing one side or the other. With the similarities of humans today, and the genetic differences being less than

THEORIES OF MODERN HUMAN ORIGINS

!3

0.1% I tend to lean more towards the replacement theory. To me it only makes sense that we would have started in one place and the environment would have altered our physical appearance, as we expanded, as well as our behaviors to create the races and differences in regions that we have today. However the regional continuity model has some authenticity as well. It has the archaeological evidence backing it up that shows it would have been very difcult for the African invaders to exterminate the locals of the other areas with the similarities in technology that existed at the time. My opinion is the combination of the two. I think that the main species of humans originated in Africa, however there were other subspecies of Homo sapiens that existed in other regions as well. This would allow the Africans to be the major source of modern humans today, but still allow for the variation that the other regions inhabitants would have had. Considering we have evidence that favors both theories, it would only make sense that they both have a little bit of truth.

! ! !

THEORIES OF MODERN HUMAN ORIGINS

!4

Citations
1. Theories of Modern Human Origins: The Paleontological Test
David W. Frayer, Milford H. Wolpoff, Alan G. Thorne, Fred H. Smith and Geoffrey G. Pope American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 95, No. 1 (Mar., 1993) , pp. 14-50 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/681178

2. Modern Human Ancestry at the Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory

Milford H. Wolpoff, John Hawks, David W. Frayer and Keith Hunley Science New Series, Vol. 291, No. 5502 (Jan. 12, 2001) , pp. 293-297 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3082343

3. How Much Can Fossils Tell Us about Regional Continuity?

Alan R. Rogers Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1995) , pp. 674-676 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744258

THEORIES OF MODERN HUMAN ORIGINS

!5