Multiregional origin of modern humans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Multiregional hypothesis)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Multiregional hypothesis, Multiregional evolution (MRE) or Polycentric theory is a scientific model that provides an alternate explanation to the more widely accepted, "Out of Africa" model 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 modern Homo sapiens sapiens. The theory 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 features.[1] Proponents of multiregionalism point to fossil and genomic data and continuity of archaeological cultures as support for their hypothesis.



The Multiregional hypothesis was proposed in 1984 by Milford H. Wolpoff, Alan Thorne and Xinzhi Wu.[2][3][1] Wolpoff credits Franz Weidenreich's "Polycentric" theory of human origins as a major influence, but cautions that this should not be confused with polypyleticism such as Carleton Coon's evolutionary model that minimized gene flow.[4][5][6] According to Wolpoff, multiregionalism was misinterpreted by William W. Howells, who confused Weidenreich's theory with a "candelabra model" in his publications spanning five decades:

"How did Multiregional evolution get stigmatized as polygeny? We believe it comes from the confusion of Weidenreich's ideas, and ultimately of our own, with Coon's. The historic reason for linking Coon's and Weidenreich's ideas came from the mischaracterizations of Weidenreich's Polycentric model as a candelabra (Howells, 1942, 1944, 1959, 1993), that made his Polycentric model appear much more similar to Coon's than it actually was."[7]

Through the influence of Howells, many other anthropologists and biologists have confused multiregionalism with polypyleticism, i.e. separate or multiple origins for different populations. Alan Templeton for example notes that this confusion has led to the error that 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 was never part of the multiregional model, much less its core, whereas gene flow was not a recent addition, but rather was present in the model from the very beginning"[8] (emphasis in original). Despite this, multiregionalism is still confused with a polyphyletic or evolutionary polygenic "candelabra model", from which Wolpoff and his colleagues have distanced themselves.[9][10] Wolpoff has also defended Wiedenreich's Polycentric theory from being labeled polyphyletic. Weidenreich himself in 1949 wrote: "I may run the risk of being misunderstood, namely that I believe in polyphyletic evolution of man".[11]

In 1998, Wu founded a China-specific Multiregional model called "Continuity with [Incidental] Hybridization".[12][13] Wu's variant only applies the Multiregional hypothesis to the East Asian fossil record which is popular among Chinese scientists.[14] However, James Leibold a political historian of modern China has argued the support for Wu's model is largely rooted in Chinese nationalism.[15] Outside of China, the Multiregional hypothesis has limited support, held only by a small number of paleoanthropologists.[16]

"Classic" vs "weak" multiregionalism[edit]

Chris Stringer a leading proponent of the more mainstream recent African origin theory debated Multiregionalists such as Wolpoff and Thorne in a series of publications throughout the late 80s and 90s.[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, including anatomical modernity (and subsequently less regional continuity than was first proposed).[21]


Fossil evidence[edit]

Morphological clades[edit]

Cast of anatomically modern human Kow Swamp 1 skull from Australia with a face to vault angle matching that of Sangiran 17 (Wolpoff's reconstruction).

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).[24][25][26] 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".[27] 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".[28] 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."

Combinations of features are "unique" in the sense of being found in only one region, or more weakly limited to one region at high frequency (very rarely in another). Wolpoff stresses that regional continuity works in conjunction with genetic exchanges between populations. Long-term regional continuity in certain morphological traits is explained by Alan Thorne's "Centre and Edge"[29] population genetics model which resolves Weidenreich's paradox of "how did populations retain geographical distinctions and yet evolve together?". For example, in 2001 Wolpoff and colleagues published an analysis of character traits of the skulls of early modern human fossils in Australia and central Europe. They concluded that the diversity of these recent humans could not "result exclusively from a single late Pleistocene dispersal", and implied dual ancestry for each region, involving interbreeding with Africans.[30]

Indonesia, Australia[edit]

Thorne held that there was regional continuity in Indonesia and Australia for a morphological clade.[31][32] This sequence is said to consist of the earliest fossils from Sangiran, Java, that can be traced through Ngandong and found in prehistoric and recent Australian Aborigines. In 1991, Andrew Kramer tested 17 proposed morphological clade features. He found that: "a plurality (eight) of the seventeen non-metric features link Sangiran to modern Australians" and that these "are suggestive of morphological continuity, which implies the presence of a genetic continuum in Australasia dating back at least one million years"[33] but Colin Groves has criticized Kramer's methodology, pointing out that the polarity of characters was not tested and that the study is actually inconclusive.[34] Dr. Phillip Habgood discovered that the characters said to be unique to the Australasian region by Thorne are plesiomorphic:

" is evident that all of the characters proposed... to be 'clade features' linking Indonesian Homo erectus material with Australian Aboriginal crania are retained primitive features present on Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens crania in general. Many are also commonly found on the crania and mandibles of anatomically-modern Homo sapiens from other geographical locations, being especially prevalent on the robust Mesolithic skeletal material from North Africa."[35]

Yet, regardless of these criticisms Habgood (2003) allows for limited regional continuity in Indonesia and Australia, recognizing four plesiomorphic features which do not appear in such a unique combination on fossils in any other region: a sagitally flat frontal bone, with a posterior position of minimum frontal breadth, great facial prognathism, and zygomaxillary tuberosities.[36] This combination, Habgood says, has a "certain Australianness about it".

Wolpoff, initially skeptical of Thorne's claims, became convinced when reconstructing the Sangiran 17 Homo erectus skull from Indonesia, when he was surprised that the skull's face to vault angle matched that of the Australian modern human Kow Swamp 1 skull in excessive prognathism. Durband (2007) in contrast states that "features cited as showing continuity between Sangiran 17 and the Kow Swamp sample disappeared in the new, more orthognathic reconstruction of that fossil that was recently completed".[37] Baba et al. who newly restored the face of Sangiran 17 concluded: "regional continuity in Australasia is far less evident than Thorne and Wolpoff argued".[38]



Xinzhi Wu has argued for a morphological clade in China spanning the Pleistocene, characterized by a combination of 10 features.[39][40] The sequence is said to start with Lantian and Peking Man, traced to Dali, to Late Pleistocene specimens (e.g. Liujiang) and recent Chinese. Habgood in 1992 criticized Wu's list, pointing out that most of the 10 features in combination appear regularly on fossils outside China.[41] He did though note that three combined: a non-depressed nasal root, non-projecting perpendicularly oriented nasal bones and facial flatness are unique to the Chinese region in the fossil record and may be evidence for limited regional continuity. However according to Chris Stringer, Habgood's study suffered from not including enough fossil samples from North Africa, many of which exhibit the small combination he considered to be region-specific to China.[20]

Facial flatness as a morphological clade feature has been rejected by many anthropologists since it is found on many early African Homo erectus fossils, and is therefore considered plesiomorphic,[42] but Wu has responded that the form of facial flatness in the Chinese fossil record appears distinct to other (i.e. primitive) forms. Toetik Koesbardiati in her PhD thesis "On the Relevance of the Regional Continuity Features of the Face in East Asia" also found that a form of facial flatness is unique to China (i.e. only appears there at high frequency, very rarely elsewhere) but cautions that this is the only available evidence for regional continuity: "Only two features appear to show a tendency as suggested by the Multiregional model: flatness at the upper face expressed by an obtuse nasio-frontal angle and flatness at the middle part of the face expressed by an obtuse zygomaxillay angle".

Shovel-shaped incisors are commonly cited as evidence for regional continuity in China.[43][44] Stringer (1992) however found that shovel-shaped incisors are present on >70% of the early Holocene Wadi Halfa fossil sample from North Africa, and common elsewhere.[45] Frayer et al. (1993) have criticized Stringer's method of scoring shovel-shaped incisor teeth. They discuss the fact that there are different degrees of "shovelled" e.g. trace (+), semi (++), and marked (+++), but that Stringer misleadingly lumped all these together: "...combining shoveling categories in this manner is biologically meaningless and misleading, as the statistic cannot be validly compared with the very high frequencies for the marked shoveling category reported for East Asians."[46] Palaeoanthropologist Fred H. Smith (2009) also emphasizes that: "It is the pattern of shoveling that identities as an East Asian regional feature, not just the occurrence of shoveling of any sort".[47] Multiregionalists argue that marked (+++) shovel-shaped incisors only appear in China at a high frequency, and have <10% occurrence elsewhere.


Comparison of modern human (left) and Neanderthal (right) skulls.

Since the early 1990s, David W. Frayer has described what he regards as a morphological clade in Europe.[48][49][50] The sequence starts with the earliest dated Neanderthal specimens (Krapina and Saccopastore skulls) traced though the mid-Late Pleistocene (e.g. La Ferrassie 1) to Vindija Cave, and late Upper Palaeolithic Cro Magnons or recent Europeans. Although many anthropologists consider Neanderthals and Cro Magnons morphologically distinct,[51][52] Frayer maintains quite the opposite and points to their similarities, which he argues is evidence for regional continuity:

"Contrary to Brauer's recent pronouncement that there is a large and generally recognized morphological gap between the Neanderthals and the early moderns, the actual evidence provided by the extensive fossil record of late Pleistocene Europe shows considerable continuity between Neanderthals and subsequent Europeans."[53]

Frayer et al. (1993) consider there to be at least 4 features in combination that are unique to the European fossil record: a horizontal-oval shaped mandibular foramen, anterior mastoid tubercle, suprainiac fossa and narrowing of the nasal breadth associated with tooth-size reduction. Regarding the latter, Frayer observes a sequence of nasal narrowing in Neanderthals, following through to late Upper Palaeolithic and Holocene (Mesolithic) crania. His claims are disputed by others,[54] but have received support from Wolpoff, who regards late Neanderthal specimens to be "transitional" in nasal form between earlier Neanderthals and later Cro Magnons.[55] Based on other cranial similarities, Wolpoff et al. (2004) argue for a sizable Neanderthal contribution to modern Europeans.[56]

More recent claims regarding continuity in skeletal morphology in Europe focus on fossils with both Neanderthal and modern anatomical traits, to provide evidence of interbreeding rather than replacement.[57][58][59] Examples include the Lapedo child found in Portugal[60] and the Oase 1 mandible from Peștera cu Oase, Romania,[61] though the Lapedo child is disputed by some.[62]

Genetic evidence[edit]


Mitochondrial Eve[edit]

A 1987 analysis of mitochondrial DNA from 147 people by Cann et al. from around the world indicated that their mitochondrial lineages all coalesced in a common ancestor from Africa between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago.[63] The analysis suggested that this reflected the worldwide expansion of modern humans as a new species, replacing, rather than mixing with, local archaic humans outside of Africa. Such a recent replacement scenario is not compatible with the Multiregional hypothesis and the mtDNA results led to increased popularity for the alternative single replacement theory.[64][65][66] According to Wolpoff and colleagues:

"When they were first published, the Mitochondrial Eve results were clearly incongruous with Multiregional evolution, and we wondered how the two could be reconciled."[67]

Multiregionalists have responded to what they see as flaws in the Eve theory,[68] and have offered contrary genetic evidences.[69][70][71] Wu and Thorne have questioned the reliability of the molecular clock used to date Eve,[72][73] Multiregionalists point out that Mitochondrial DNA alone can not rule out interbreeding between early modern and archaic humans, since archaic human mitochondrial strains from such interbreeding could have been lost due to genetic drift or a selective sweep.[74][75] Wolpoff for example states that Eve is "not the most recent common ancestor of all living people" since "Mitochondrial history is not population history".[76]

Neanderthal MtDNA[edit]

Neanderthal mtDNA sequences from Feldhofer and Vindija Cave are substantially different from modern human mtDNA.[77][78][79] Multiregionalists however have discussed the fact that the average difference between the Feldhofer sequence and living humans is less than that found between chimpanzee subspecies,[80][81] and therefore that while Neanderthals were different subspecies, they were still human and part of the same lineage.

Nuclear DNA[edit]



Later analyses of X chromosome and autosomal DNA continued to find sites with deep coalescence times inconsistent with a single origin of modern humans,[84][85][86][87][88] diversity patterns inconsistent with a recent expansion from Africa,[89] or both.[90][91] For example, analyses of a region of RRM2P4 (ribonucleotide reductase M2 subunit pseudogene 4) showed a coalescence time of about 2 Mya, with a clear root in Asia,[92][93] while the MAPT locus at 17q21.31 is split into two deep genetic lineages, one of which is common in and largely confined to the present European population, suggesting inheritance from Neanderthals.[94][95][96][97] In the case of the Microcephalin D allele, evidence for rapid recent expansion indicated introgression from an archaic population.[98][99][100][101]


Ancient DNA[edit]

Recent analyses of DNA taken directly from Neanderthal specimens indicates that they or their ancestors contributed to the genome of all humans outside of Africa, indicating there was some degree of interbreeding with Neanderthals before their replacement.[103] It has also been shown that Denisova hominins contributed to the DNA of Melanesians and Australians through interbreeding.[104]


Recent African origin[edit]

The primary competing scientific hypothesis is currently recent African origin of modern humans, which proposes that modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100–200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50–60,000 years ago to replace existing human species such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals with limited interbreeding: at least once with Neanderthals and once with Denisovans.[114][115][116][117][118] This differs from the multiregional hypothesis in that the multiregional model predicts interbreeding with local human populations in any such migration.[116]

See also[edit]


  2. ^ Wolpoff, M. H., Wu, X. Z., & Alan, G. (86). G. Thorne: 1984,‘Modern Homo Sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence from east Asia’. The Origins of Modern Humans, Liss, New York, 411-483.
  4. ^ Wolpoff, M. H.; Hawks, J.; Caspari, R. (2000). "Multiregional, not multiple origins". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112: 129–136. doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-8644(200005)112:1<129::aid-ajpa11>;2-k. 
  5. ^ Hawks, J.; Wolpoff, M. H. (2003). "Sixty years of modern human origins in the American Anthropological Association". American Anthropologist 105 (1): 89–100. doi:10.1525/aa.2003.105.1.89. 
  7. ^ Caspari, R.; Wolpoff, M. H. (1996). "Weidenreich, Coon, and multiregional evolution". Human evolution 11 (3-4): 261–268. doi:10.1007/bf02436629. 
  8. ^ Templeton, A. R. (2007). "Genetics and recent human evolution". Evolution 61 (7): 1507–1519. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00164.x. 
  9. ^ Wolpoff, M. H. and R. Caspari. 1997. Race and human evolution: A fatal attraction. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  10. ^ Wolpoff, M.H., and R. Caspari. (2000). "The Many Species of Humanity". Przegląd Antropologiczny (Anthropological Review) 63(1):3-17.
  11. ^ Weidenreich, F. (1949). "Interpretations of the fossil material". In: Early Man in the Far East: Studies in Physical Anthropology. Howells, W. W (ed). Studies in Physical Anthropology; No. 1, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Detroit. pp.149-157.
  12. ^ Wu, X. (1998). "Origin of modern humans of China viewed from cranio-dental characteristics of late Homo sapiens". Acta Anthropologica Sinica 17: 276–282. 
  13. ^ Rosenberg, K. R., Wu, X. (2013). "A River Runs through It: Modern Human Origins in East Asia". In: The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered. Smith, F. H (ed). Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 89-122.
  14. ^ Liu, L., Chen, X. (2012). The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 14: "the majority of Chinese archaeologists and palaeontologists support[s] the multiregional development model, proposing a hypothesis of regional continuity with hybridization between immigrants and indigenous populations in the evolution from H. erectus to H. sapiens in East Asia."
  15. ^ Leibold, J. (2012). "'Filling in the Nation: The Spatial Trajectory of Prehistoric Archaeology in Twentieth-Century China," in Transforming History: The Making of a Modern Academic Discipline in Twentieth Century China, eds. Brian Moloughney and Peter Zarrow, pp. 333-71 (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press).
  16. ^ Begun, DR. (2013). "The Past, Present and Future of Palaeoanthropology". In: A Companion to Paleoanthropology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 8: "It needs to be noted, however, that this [Multiregional model] is a minority view among paleoanthropologists, most of whom support the African replacement model."
  18. ^ Stringer, C.; Bräuer, G. (1994). "Methods, misreading, and bias". American Anthropologist 96 (2): 416–424. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.2.02a00080. 
  21. ^ Stringer, C. (2001). "Modern human origins—distinguishing the models". Afr. Archaeol. Rev 18: 67–75. 
  22. ^ Stringer, C. (2002). "Modern human origins: progress and prospects". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 357(1420): 563-579.
  23. ^ Stringer, C. (2014). "Why we are not all multiregionalists now". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29 (5): 248–251. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.03.001. 
  24. ^ Wolpoff, M. H. (1985). Human evolution at the peripheries: the pattern at the eastern edge. Hominid Evolution: past, present and future, 355-365.
  25. ^ Frayer, D. W.; Wolpoff, M. H.; Thorne, A. G.; Smith, F. H.; Pope, G. G. (1993). "Theories of modern human origins: the paleontological test". American Anthropologist 95 (1): 14–50. doi:10.1525/aa.1993.95.1.02a00020. 
  26. ^ Wolpoff, M.H., A.G. Thorne, F.H. Smith, D.W. Frayer, and G.G. Pope: Multiregional Evolution: A World-Wide Source for Modern Human Populations. In: Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, edited by M.H. Nitecki and D.V. Nitecki. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 175-199.
  27. ^ Wolpoff, M. H. (1989). "Multiregional evolution: the fossil alternative to Eden. In". The human revolution: behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans 1: 62–108. 
  28. ^ Thorne, A. G.; Wolpoff, M. H. (1981). "Regional continuity in Australasian Pleistocene hominid evolution". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55 (3): 337–349. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330550308. 
  29. ^ Thorne, A.G. (1981). "The Centre and the Edge: The significance of Australian hominids to African Palaeoanthropology". Proceedings of the 8th Pan-African Congress of Prehistory (Nairobi), pp. 180–181. Nairobi: National Museums of Kenya.
  30. ^ Wolpoff, Milford H.; John Hawks; David W. Frayer; Keith Hunley (2001). "Modern Human Ancestry at the Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory". Science (AAAS) 291 (5502): 293–297. Bibcode:2001Sci...291..293W. doi:10.1126/science.291.5502.293. PMID 11209077. 
  31. ^ Thorne, A.G. (1984). "Australia's human origins – how many sources?".". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 63: 227. 
  32. ^ Thorne, A.G.; Wolpoff, M.H. (1992). "The multiregional evolution of humans". Scientific American 266 (4): 76–83. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0492-76. 
  33. ^ Kramer, A. (1991). "Modern human origins in Australasia: replacement or evolution?".". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 86 (4): 455–473. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330860403. 
  34. ^ Groves, C. P. (1997). "Thinking about Evolutionary Change The Polarity of Our Ancestors". In: Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. Transaction Publishers.
  35. ^ Habgood, P.J. (1989) "The origin of anatomically modern humans in Australasia". In: P. Mellars and C.B. Stringer (eds.) The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives in the Origins of Modern Humans, pp. 245-273.
  36. ^ Habgood, P.J. (2003). A Morphometric Investigation into the Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1176. Oxford England: Archaeopress.
  37. ^ Durband, A. (2007). "The view from down under: a test of the multiregional hypothesis of modern human origins using the basicranial evidence from Australasia". Collegium antropologicum 31 (3): 651–659. 
  38. ^ Baba, H.; Aziz, F.; Narasaki, S. (2000). "Restoration of the face of Javanese Homo erectus Sangiran 17 and re-evaluation of regional continuity in Australasia". Acta Anthropologica Sinica 19: 34–40. 
  39. ^ Wu, X. (1990). "The evolution of humankind in China". Acta Anthropologica Sinica 9 (4): 312–321. 
  40. ^ Wu, X., Poirier, F. E. (1995).Human evolution in China: a metric description of the fossils and a review of the sites. New York: Oxford University Press.
  41. ^ Habgood, P.J. (1992). "The origin of anatomically modern humans in east Asia". In: G. Bräuer, and F.H. Smith (eds.) Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. pp. 273-288.
  42. ^ Groves, C. P. (1989). "A regional approach to the problem of the origin of modern humans in Australasia". In: P. Mellars & CB. Stringer (eds). In: The Human Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 274-85.
  43. ^ Woo, R. (1986). "Chinese human fossils and the origin of Mongoloid racial group". Anthropos (Brno). 23: 151-155.
  44. ^ Wu, X. (2006). "Evidence of Multiregional Human Evolution Hypothesis from China". Quaternary Sciences 26 (5): 702–70. 
  45. ^ Stringer, C. B. (1992). "Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens". In: Continuity or replacement? Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema. pp. 9-24.
  47. ^ Cartmill, M & Smith, F. H. (2009). The Human Lineage. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 450.
  48. ^ Frayer, D. W. (1992). "The persistence of Neanderthal features in post-Neanderthal Europeans". In: Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 179-188.
  49. ^ Frayer, D. W. (1992)."Evolution at the European edge: Neanderthal and the Upper Paleolithic relationships. Préhistoire Européene. 2:9-69.
  50. ^ Frayer, D. W. (1997)."Perspectives on Neanderthals as ancestors". In: Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 220-235.
  54. ^ Holton, N. E.; Franciscus, R. G. (2008). "The paradox of a wide nasal aperture in cold-adapted Neandertals: a causal assessment". Journal of Human Evolution 55 (6): 942–951. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.001. 
  55. ^ Wolpoff, M. H. (1989). "The place of Neanderthals in human evolution". In: The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. Trinkaus, E (ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 97-141.
  58. ^ The Emerging Fate Of The Neandertals
  59. ^ Smith, F. H.; Janković, I.; Karavanić, I. (2005). "The assimilation model, modern human origins in Europe, and the extinction of Neandertals". Quaternary International 137 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2004.11.016. 
  67. ^ Wolpoff, M., Caspari, R. (1997). Race and human evolution: A fatal attraction. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 213.
  68. ^ Wolpoff, M., & Thorne, A. (1991). "The case against Eve". New Scientist. 130(1774), 37-41
  69. ^ Curnoe, D.; Thorne, A. (2003). "Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective". Homo-Journal of Comparative Human Biology 53 (3): 201–224. doi:10.1078/0018-442x-00051. 
  70. ^ Wu, X. (2004). "Discussion on the results of some molecular studies concerning the origin of modern Chinese". Acta Anthropologica Sinica 24 (4): 259–269. 
  71. ^ Thorne, A. G.; Wolpoff, M. H.; Eckhardt, R. B. (1993). "Genetic variation in Africa". Science 261 (5128): 1507–1508. doi:10.1126/science.8372344. 
  72. ^ Wu, Xinzhi; Gao, Xing; Zhang, X.; Yang, D.; Shen, C. (2010). "Revisiting the origin of modern humans in China and its implications for global human evolution". Science China Earth Sciences 53 (12): 1927–1940. 
  73. ^ Thorne, A.G.; Curnoe, D. (2006). "What is the real age of Adam and Eve? Proceedings of the Australian Society of Human Biology". Homo-Journal of Comparative Human Biology 57: 240. 
  76. ^ Thorne, A.G.; Wolpoff, M.H. (2003). "The Multiregional Evolution of Humans". Scientific American 13 (2): 46–53. 
  78. ^ Krings, M.; Capelli, C.; Tschentscher, F.; Geisert, H.; Meyer, S.; von Haeseler, A. et al. (2000). "A view of Neandertal genetic diversity". Nature Genetics 26: 144–6. doi:10.1038/79855. 
  79. ^ Wang, C. C.; Farina, S. E.; Li, H. (2013). "Neanderthal DNA and modern human origins". Quaternary International 295: 126–129. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.02.027. 
  80. ^ Relethford, J. H. (2001). "Absence of regional affinities of Neandertal DNA with living humans does not reject multiregional evolution". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115 (1): 95–98. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1060. 
  81. ^ Wolpoff, M. (1998). "Concocting a Divisive Theory". Evolutionary Anthropology 7 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6505(1998)7:1<1::aid-evan1>;2-w. 
  82. ^ Hammer, M. F., et. al." (1998). "Out of Africa and Back Again: Nested Cladistic Analysis of Human Y Chromosome Variation". Molecular Biology and Evolution 15 (4): 427–441. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025939. PMID 9549093. 
  103. ^ Yotova, Vania; Lefebvre, Jean-Francois et al. (Jul 2011). "An X-Linked Haplotype of Neandertal Origin Is Present Among All Non-African Populations". Molecular Biology and Evolution (Oxford University Press) 28 (7): 1957–1962. doi:10.1093/molbev/msr024. PMID 21266489. 
  108. ^ Reich, David, et al. (2010-12-23). "Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia". Nature 468 (7327): 1053–1060. Bibcode:2010Natur.468.1053R. doi:10.1038/nature09710. PMID 21179161. 
  117. ^ Fagundes, N. J.; Ray N.; Beaumont M.; Neuenschwander S.; Salzano F. M.; Bonatto S. L.; Excoffier L. (2007). "Statistical evaluation of alternative models of human evolution". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104 (45): 17614–9. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10417614F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0708280104. PMC 2077041. PMID 17978179. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]