Search results

Gutgesell's review of the single species hypothesis, and the dismissal of its proposed refutation at Swartkrans, is critically examined. Most of her claims are not supported by the available evidence at Swartkrans, nor by the morphology and variation of recognized robust australopithecines and other hominoid taxa. Her statistical results are questionable, whether or not one utilizes her procedures. With the demonstrated association of the maxilla (SK 80) with a cranium (SK 846/847) described as "Paranthropus" by both Robinson and Tobias, the only possible interpretation of the detailed morphology, the ranges of variation, and the statistical comparisons, is that SK 15, 45, and 80 are small robust australopithecines.

We present a review of the history of scientific inquiry into modern human origins, focusing on the role of the American Anthropologist. We begin during the mid–20th century, at the time when the problem of modern human origins was first presented in the American Anthropologist and could first be distinguished from more general questions about human and hominid origins. Next, we discuss the effects of the modern evolutionary synthesis on biological anthropology and paleoanthropology in particular, and its role in the origin of anthropological genetics. The rise of human genetics is discussed along two tracks, which have taken starkly different approaches to the historical interpretation of recent human diversity. We cover varying paleoanthropological interpretations, including paleoanthropologists' reactions to genetic interpretations. We hope to identify some of the crucial inflection points in which the debate went astray, to rectify some of the points of misunderstanding among current scientists, and to clarify the likely path ahead. [Keywords: multiregional evolution, recent African origin, bottleneck, polygenism, race]

The appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Europe, the Near East, and Africa must represent either an in situ evolution of Neandertals or a migration. Those who suggest the latter claim a sudden replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern Homo sapiens. However, the "evidence" actually cited claims only the sudden replacement of Middle by Upper Paleolithic industries. We criticize the migration explanation on two grounds. (1) There is no "sudden replacement" of Middle Paleolithic by Upper Paleolithic industries, but rather a gradual change in the frequencies of already present tools. Numerous sites in these areas exhibit transitional industries. (2) Concomitantly, there is no morphological evidence indicating a "sudden replacement" of hominids. There is no absolute association between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Upper Paleolithic industries. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that early anatomically modern Homo sapiens is a late Middle Paleolithic local phenomenon.