Can someone explain to me how the fossils from Asia may support either replacement or multiregional models of the origins of modern humans?
- JimZLv 77 months ago
I'm currently reading a book called Close Encounters with Humankind by Lee, Sang-hee who is a paleontologist but leans to the multi-regionalist model which makes it hard for me to read since I tend to grit my teeth when it seems he ignores the vast amount of evidence which seems to put the multi-regional hypothesis to bed. I think Gray Bold is right, that they see it as showing continuity of traits and sometimes even genes since we hybridized with different "species".
IMO, the evidence shows that modern humans replaced Neanderthals and other hominids that were living elsewhere. It may be true that we did hybridize with them to a small degree but Neanderthals, for example, lived for tens of thousands of years after the hybridization and there was almost no additional crossing until they were replaced by humans. The evidence for denisovans is too scanty to make conclusions but it is probably the same with them and others.
Obknob is right too IMO and the Chinese are the worst offenders when it comes to the multiregional theory. They don't believe it because of the evidence or science. It is politically convenient and it is really a racist theory for them to suggest they are superior to other races.
In the book I'm reading, he talks about Neanderthals being ancestral humans. It is annoying to me. They aren't our ancestors except the very few that hybridized with humans 70 thousand years ago and maybe one other time since then. I like the book and it seems he gets things right almost all the time. In one paragraph he suggests that race is a social construct and then a few pages later suggests that Neanderthals are ancestral. I just roll my eyes. I will endure it and see what he believes.
- ob1knobLv 77 months ago
Because as often, the truth is in-between, but in this case closer to the replacement model.
Humans migrated out of Africa in several waves over a period of 2 million years, for example, when periodic drought turn Sahara forest into a desert. So from earliest H. ergaster/erectus 1.8 million years ago to the last massive migration 60,000 years ago colloquially called Out-of-Africa.
- Multiregional model states that OoA populations spread over Eurasia, mixed with local previously migrated populations ("natives"): Erectus in Asia, Neanderthals in Europe etc. The various admixtures made recognizable regional features ("human races").
This model is also the Chinese nationalist storytelling: "Chineses are the descendant of Peking Man (a H. erectus), Gweilos (non-Chinese people) are not"
- Replacement model states that OoA populations spread over Eurasia, drove local populations to extinction and eventually replaced them.
Regional features ("human races") diverged afterward.
Molecular analyses show that every human out of Africa has inherited 2 to 6 % DNA of one or another archaic human species.
That means that OoA migrants rapidly outnumbered and almost replaced the natives, but took time to interbreed a little with them (~5 % instead of 50 % for a perfect mix)
- Gray BoldLv 77 months ago
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.
- martinLv 77 months ago
Along the eastern coast of China have been found some of the oldest evidences of civilization. Areas with unstable geology, such as America's west coast, logically would reveal only relatively modern traces of human habitation. Archeologists no longer jump to the conclusion that the earliest civilizations were in Africa.