Methods, Misreading, and Bias

Methods, Misreading, and BiasAuthor(s): Chris Stringer and Günter BräuerSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 416-424Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/681681 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 20:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:30:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/stable/681681?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


tained through drift or selection (e.g., compare Wolpoff et al. 1984 with Thorne and Wolpoff 1992). If the former, their persistence over most of the Pleistocene in the face of climatic changes and extensive gene flow is remarkable; if the latter, then these features could have continually reevolved in the same regions, producing homoplasy rather than phylogenetic continuity. However, we think it is more appropriate not to accept all regional lineages as established but to treat each proposed ancient-modern relationship as a hypothesis for testing. By comparing different proposed lineages, we can then select the best-supported ones from the evidence available. This kind of approach seems to have been generally accepted in phylogenetic reconstruction of Pliocene hominids, as in non- hominids.

Regarding ET and RAO, we are agreed that later Pleistocene Africa probably provided the prime evolutionary source for the modern human morphology now found across the world. However, we do not feel that the "Eve" concept, based on a particular interpretation of the mtDNA data, is a very useful way of characterizing RAO when the evidence comes from fossils and nuclear DNA studies as well, so we will not follow Frayer et al. in (apparently) equating ET with RAO. Finally, we ourselves differ somewhat in our empha- ses regarding RAO, and this means we do not sit easily within the extremely polarized positions presented by Frayer et al.: one of us (CBS) feels that the mode of emplacement of modern human morphology in the non-Afri- can Old World was indeed by a replacement of pre-existing archaic populations accompanied by minimal gene flow, while the other favors a greater degree of hybridization between dispersing moderns and resident ar- chaics during the dispersal phase. It is, there- fore, inappropriate for Frayer et al. to claim (p. 16) that GB holds an extreme view of total replacement (e.g., see Brauer 1984a). We also differ about the appropriate level of taxo- nomic distinction between archaic forms, such as the Neanderthals, and modern humans: one of us (CBS) favors a specific difference, based on morphology; the other re- gards the differences as intraspecific. Neither of us feels that taking an RAO position neces-

Methods, Misreading, and Bias

CHRIS STRINGER Department of Palaeontolog3 The Natural History Museum, London

GUNTER BRAUER Institut fur Humanbiologie Universitit Hamburg

The article "Theories of Modern Human Origins: The Paleontological Test," by Frayer et al. (AA 95:14-50, 1993), purports to be an unambiguous test of a hypothesis of modern human origins (termed by them the "Eve Theory," which we will abbreviate as "ET"). We are supporters of a related hypothesis that we term the "Recent African Origin Hypothe- sis" ("RAO"). We wish to comment critically on the methods used by Frayer et al. in their testing of ET and in their concomitant support for the opposing "Multiregional Evolu- tion Hypothesis" ("MRE"). In our opinion, the claimed disproof of ET is incorrect and has been achieved in most cases by one of three means: misreading of the available data; selectivity of data used; and bias in the assessment of the merits of ET/RAO versus MRE evidence. We will point out examples of each of these flaws as we review their article.

First, we should clarify our own positions regarding ET, RAO, and MRE. Neither of us feels that MRE provides an adequate explana- tory framework for recent human evolution. This approach accepts that all Pleistocene hominids (except, presumably, Paranthropus and late Homo habilis) are ancestral to modern Homo sapiens and that all the hominids are closely related to each other (see, e.g., Frayer et al., figure 1). No attempt is made to test hypotheses of relationship, since these are assumed to be there and are merely to be supported by data collection. For those who purport to be followers of Popper (Frayer et al., p. 42), this is indeed a remarkable approach, and one to which we will return later. In addition, we believe that MRE is flawed in its contradictory claims for both long-term stability of regional characters and for long- term, substantial, interregional gene flow. Moreover, it is unclear whether regional continuity features were supposedly being main-

416

Commentaries



COMMENTARIES 417

sarily entails accepting that dispersing modern humans must have represented a new species, contrary to the implications of Frayer etal.

Predictions

Frayer et al. criticize Howells for his mis- characterization of MRE as a "candelabra" model, but their use of the extreme version of ET means that they set up a "straw man" (or rather woman) in their equation of RAO with the derivation of all modern humans from a single female who lived about 200,000 years ago, followed by complete replacement of existing populations in Africa and elsewhere. Following the numbering of their predictions from ET (pp. 19-20), we would comment on each as follows:

1. Complete replacement: This is based on an interpretation of the mtDNA data and cannot be verified from nuclear DNA or paleontological data with our present state of knowledge-indeed, the fossil record could never conceivably be complete enough to confirm this absolutely for all regions. Our view is that an evolutionary transition from morphologi- cally archaic to early modern humans occurred in Africa, most probably between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago. There was not necessarily a replacement event in Africa (contra p. 17), but subsequent dispersal was indeed accompanied by population replacement, although as we indicated above, we differ over the details of the replacement phase. Frayer et al. are evidently troubled by the requirement of an RAO viewpoint for the replacement of groups of hunter-gatherers by other groups. There are certainly examples of this from the recent human past, and we could also produce many analogous situ- ations from the rest of the living world, but we would rather challenge Frayer et al. to consider how they envisage the establishment of early Homo erectus to have occurred in Af- rica, following an apparent coexistence of this species with late Homo habilis between about 1.5 and 1.8 million years ago, as implic- itly accepted by Wolpoff and Thorne (Wolpoffetal. 1991).

We should also bear in mind that using recent analogies of invasions and replacement events can be misleading, since any short-term hybridization could look very different if viewed over a geological timescale. As Cann (an "Eve theorist," using the termi- nology of Frayer et al.) has pointed out,

if true hybridization took place between Neanderthal and anatomically modern

people, we are about 30,000 years too late to see the persistence of Neanderthal ma- ternal lineages, using the example of the Africanized honey bees. Here, even though gene flow between European and African parental types can be measured, the Euro- pean nuclear and mitochondrial alleles are lost in only 150 generations. [Cann 1992:71]

The idea of a technological advantage mentioned by Frayer et al. in the success of modern humans is a possibility, but we would prefer to posit the more general concept of a behavioral advantage, since this could cover innovations in such things as language, cog- nition, planning depth, and social structure (including reproductive success), which might not be directly reflected in lithic technology. It should also be borne in mind that modern human dispersal began during the Middle Paleolithic, although the subsequent Upper Paleolithic "Human Revolution" rec- ognized by many archeologists might have accelerated it in regions such as Europe.

2. Earliest modern humans in Africa: We agree with this prediction with the proviso that the Levant might, with better evidence, be considered as part of the area of origin.

3. The earliest modern humans look "African ": There is a potentially serious misrepresentation here. The earliest modern humans should resemble their proposed African ancestors (i.e., African late middle Pleistocene hominids), as we contend they do, and not modern Africans, except where it can be shown that modern Africans have also retained such ancestral features. We would also expect (and have observed) that early moderns show a "less differentiated anatomical form" (Brauer 1992:89; Frayer et al. 1993:19) in the sense that modern regional features were less, or not yet, established.

4. No anatomical evidence of mixing: This could be predicted from an extreme version of ET. We recognize that such hybridization might have occurred, but is of minor (GB) or negligible (CBS) significance for the ancestry of living humans.

5. No evidence of continuity: We agree with this prediction with the proviso that limited hybridization could have occurred that mim- icked the effects of in situ evolutionary change.

In their subsequent discussion of the ar- cheological evidence (pp. 20-21), the point raised above about behavioral rather than spe- cifically technological advantages should be borne in mind. A number of unsubstantiated statements are made here, including implica-



418 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [96, 1994

tions that Zhoukoudian Locality 1 was inhab- ited continuously over 500,000 years (occupa- tion was far more likely to have been sporadic, and available data are of little value in judging the "traditional knowledge of the resource base and seasonal use of the environment" of the intermittent inhabitants). Similarly, is there convincing evidence that early modern humans and Neanderthals in the Levant"util- ized the same stylized burial customs, hunted the same game, and even used the same butchering procedures"?

Australasia

Moving on to the fossil evidence, Frayer et al. first consider Australasia. We are told of long-term continuity and transitional samples. However, the evidence is far from per- suasive. For example, Frayer et al. give seven facial or dental features that are said to char- acterize this clade over a million years or so, up to the present. This list contains traits such as the zygomaxillary tuberosity, which we and others (Habgood 1989:254) cannot recognize in the only reasonably preserved earlier Pleistocene face from Java (Sangiran 17). Nevertheless, even if we accept that the clade features were present in the early Pleistocene, there is an estimated temporal gap of some 700,000 years before we arrive at terminal Pleistocene and Holocene material, again said (although we would dispute it) to show the same complex of features. The supposedly transitional Ngandong sample, probably of late middle to early late Pleistocene date, in fact has no facial or dental material preserved, so cannot be used to reinforce the suggested pattern of continuity in facial and dental form.

The description of the Australian evidence is also contentious. We are told that the earliest Australians arrived by boat prior to 60,000 years ago and were modern in their behavior and anatomy, although showing continuation of the Javanese features. How- ever, even if we accept that there was an arrival by boat prior to 60,000 years ago (although this is certainly not established), the evidence for the other statements is completely lacking. The earliest well-dated and relatively complete Australian skeletal material (Lake Mungo) is only about half this age and certainly does not appear to show features of regional continuity. However, for unexplained reasons, the still undated, unde- scribed, and possibly pathological (Brown 1989, 1992; Webb 1990) WLH 50 calvaria is used instead in figure 2 and table 1 as part of

the evidence for ancient regional continuity in Australia. In figure 2, the authors select Border Cave 1 as an "African Eve" for comparison with WLH 50. This is curious for several reasons: first, they do not accept the evidence for its early late Pleistocene age (p. 34); second, even proponents of ET and RAO do not generally regard it as a probable last common ancestor for modern humans, since recent evidence suggests that it probably post- dates such an ancestor; third, it is evidently not a female individual!

Then, in the comparisons of table 1, the authors switch to the use ofNgaloba (LH 18) instead of Border Cave 1 on the ground that it is the most complete of what they term "the earliest Eves." In fact, the Irhoud 1 and ES- 11693 specimens are at least as complete as LH 18, and Irhoud 1, at least, is probably of comparable antiquity. For a comparison with WLH 50, there are five African late middle to early late Pleistocene calvariae that are more complete than the Australian specimen (ex- cluding the probably pathological Singa calvaria from consideration). Picking one specimen (LH 18) for comparison with the Ngandong sample and WLH 50 represents a misleadingly typological approach, taking no account of individual variations in the African sample.

For example, the use of Omo-Kibish 2 instead of LH 18 would have completely changed the conclusions drawn from table 1. Arguably (depending on the definition of features such as an angular torus and assum- ing that the attributions for character 6 have been mistakenly transposed), Omo-Kibish 2 shows every one of the 12 supposed Aus- tralasian regional features. In addition, when size-standardized metrical data are taken into account, Omo-Kibish 2 shares with the other late archaic Africans and WLH 50 the more modern features of a relatively longer and more arched parietal, greater vault height, and narrower base, which are not found in the Ngandong sample. Metrical comparison of WLH 50 with the early modern Skhul- Qafzeh sample shows an even closer resemblance in shape once the very large size of the calvaria is taken into account, reinforcing the view that the Levantine sample may be mor- phologically close to the ancestral one for all modern humans (Stringer 1992a).

East Asia

Considering China, we are told of the "continuous sequence of human fossil remains" and of early Pleistocene (pre-Zhoukoudian)



COMMENTARIES 419

material showing the cranial and facial features of regional continuity. No details are provided, and we are only aware of some poorly preserved material from Lantian as being relevant here. We are informed of the regional continuity feature of maxillary incisor shoveling (this will be discussed later), and we are told that there are none of the African features in specimens such as Dali, Jinniushan, and Yunxian that would be expected from ET. This last point is particularly odd, given that these specimens are surely older than the dispersal event(s) posited by us to follow the African origin of modern humans, and as such, we would not expect earlier Chinese specimens to show such features.

There is also some confusion here between fossils supposedly transitional between Homo erectus and "archaic Homo sapiens" and those supposedly transitional between the latter group and modern humans. There are serious misrepresentations of GB's views since, unlike CBS, he does not see problems in an erectus/"archaic sapiens" transition in east Asia, but like CBS does see problems in iden- tifying an archaic/modern transition. Re- garding the claimed distinctively Asian faces of specimens like Zhoukoudian, Jinniushan, Yunxian, and Dali, it is important to remem- ber that the former faces have been recon- structed, while the latter faces are distorted: for example, it is clear that the undistorted face of Dali would have been both longer and more projecting than is shown in its present compressed condition. Furthermore, at least one of the authors is elsewhere clearly aware of the variation in and complexity of the Chinese evidence (e.g., see his figure 4 and the statement [p. 274] that "the Jinniushan specimen fits neither the Replacement nor Regional Continuity model in their simplest forms" [Pope 1992]). In addition, existing chronometric data are inadequate to demon- strate whether Dali is really older than Irhoud 1, as claimed on page 26 (compare Chen and Zhang 1991 with Grin and Stringer 1991).

One of us recently showed that North Afri- can late Pleistocene cranial samples showed high frequencies of supposed Asian and, particularly, Australian "clade" features, under- mining their value as regional markers and suggesting that these might more plausibly be interpreted as plesiomorphies or ho- moplasies (Stringer 1992b). Frayer et al. state that most of the traits used are not in their recent listings of regional characteristics, and that one (ear exostoses) is not even under genetic control. Obviously when CBS made

his initial study in 1987 he could not have anticipated the revised list published by Pope four years later. However, he did in fact use Wolpoff et al. 1984 as the main source of traits, including the listing of ear exostoses, repeated without criticism from Weidenreich (Wolpoff et al. 1984:425).

The criticized example of incisor shoveling frequencies is a particularly good illustration of the application of bias (double standards) mentioned earlier. The data were taken from table 4 of Greene and Armelagos (1972:77). They compared frequencies of incisor shoveling at their site 6836 ( 11 out of 13 individuals) with that at the comparable SMU site (10 out of 14 teeth), which is how the frequency of more than 70 percent was calculated. One could certainly criticize the way they lumped different shoveling criteria in their table, and we certainly agree that this trait deserves much more careful study and reporting. We do not believe this trait is very useful phyloge- netically, but it nevertheless behooves those who criticize us (and, by extension, Greene and Armelagos) to present their own shoveling frequency data in the detail they require from us, and this they have never done. If they do so, perhaps they will then be able to ex- plain why the reportedly high frequency of shoveling is a mark of regional continuity in China, while its apparent loss in Europe at the Neanderthal/early modern interface is not a mark of discontinuity! It is noticeable that Frayer et al. limit their detailed criticism to this one point of shoveling, within the discussion of Asian features. We take this to indicate a general recognition that the critique of the Asian and Australian clade features made in Stringer (1992b) is valid, as has been con- firmed in an independent study (Lahr 1994).

Europe

Considering Europe, there is another serious distortion in the statement that one of us (CBS) believes that "once the Upper Paleo- lithic is reached, all the features that charac- terize living Europeans are established" (p. 28). Nothing could be further from the truth, since we believe that European regional features such as face shape and body proportions have predominantly been acquired since the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic (see, e.g., Stringer 1989a, 1992a). This is particularly relevant to Frayer et al.'s misrepresentation of recent research results concerning body proportions. Work by Trinkaus and Holliday (Trinkaus 1981; Holliday and Trinkaus 1991 and personal communication), Stringer




(1989b), and Ruff (1991) has shown that

considering features such as brachial and crural indices, limb length/trunk height, and

pelvic breadth/stature ratios: (1) an early Pleistocene African skeleton (WT-15000) re- sembles modern tropical Africans; (2) Nean- derthals from Europe and the Levant predominantly resemble modern cold-adapted peoples; (3) the earliest modern humans from Europe and the Levant resemble WT- 15000 and modern Africans in body proportions more than they resemble either Nean- derthals or modern cold-adapted peoples; and (5) the middle Pleistocene Broken Hill tibia, closely associated with the archaic cranium from that site, is similar in length to the means of the early Upper Paleolithic and

Skhul-Qafzeh samples and to the projected adult tibial length of WT-15000, and is some 25 millimeters longer than the longest Nean- derthal tibia.

These observations certainly support the

proposition that early modern humans in western Eurasia retained a body shape found in earlier African hominids, while Neander- thals moved away from the presumed ancestral body proportions, developing a long- term cold adaptation. Contrary to Frayer et al.'s contention, there is good evidence of a

change in body proportions during the Up-

per Paleolithic from more "African" to more

"European" values comparing earlier specimens or samples such as Cro-Magnon, Pred- mostf, and Grotte des Enfants with later ones such as Chancelade, Oberkassel, and Cap Blanc. Rather than address these data, Frayer et al. claim they are "confusing" (to whose arguments?), and instead present somewhat irrelevant data on stature rather than body proportions.

Both of us have previously dealt in detail with repeated claims for "transitional" fossils at the Neanderthal/early modern interface in Europe. As Frayer himself recently said with regard to the central European evidence

(Frayer 1992:180), "it is perhaps difficult to ascertain what are true transitional specimens, since age, sex and individual variation can prejudice judgments about what is and what is not a transitional fossil." Once again we must reiterate the points that the effects of hybridization could mimic those of in situ evolutionary change and that an attempt should be made to separate plesiomorphous from apomorphous characters in comparisons of Neanderthal and early modern humans. For the first point, we would remind one of the authors of his recent changed views regarding the central European evidence,

when he seemed to accept the reality of a substantial extra European influence at the Neanderthal/early modern interface (Smith et al. 1989; Smith and Trinkaus 1991 ).

Concerning the second point, we-like Frayer et al.-believe that modern humans evolved from ancestors with (overall) larger faces, jaws, teeth, and browridges. However, such features were widespread in the middle Pleistocene rather than specific to European Neanderthals, so comparisons cannot be re- stricted to one region in deciding the most

probable evolutionary sequence. In addition, if there are plausible alternative ancestors for the earliest modern Europeans, such as the

Skhul-Qafzeh sample, these should be added in all the relevant comparisons in order to evaluate the Neanderthals as possible ancestors.

While we accept Frayer et al.'s data about

high H-O mandibular foramen frequencies in Neanderthals and its interesting occur- rence in some early Upper Paleolithic mandibles such as Stetten 1, which we would consider a possible sign of gene flow between Neanderthals and early modern humans, we would also advise caution about the inclusion of specimens like Vindija 207 in the early Upper Paleolithic sample, since this could in fact be a late Neanderthal. Additionally, the small sample sizes for Africa (n = 1) and Skhul-Qafzeh (n= 2) mean that sampling error could be giving a spurious absence in these groups of a feature that, with better data, is still present in only about half the Neanderthals examined. More selective use of data is evident in Frayer et al. in the discussion of the Vindija material on page 28, where we are told that they possess the "transitional" feature of midorbit thinning, and in the discussion of Saint-Cesaire on page 29, where we are told that it shows the "transitional" feature of lateral thinning! It is again instructive to compare this last comment by Frayer et al. with earlier comments by one of these authors, who elsewhere considered Saint- Cesaire a typical Neanderthal and viewed the western European Neanderthals as showing "little evidence of evolutionary trends in the modern human direction" (Smith et al. 1989:50; see also Smith and Trinkaus 1991:286).

Europe and Africa

The relative merits of the Vindija and Klasies River Mouth material are discussed on

page 29 and pages 35 to 36 in another application of double standards. Frayer et al. state



COMMENTARIES 421

that the Klasies material is "much smaller and more fragmentary" (have they seen the Klasies mandible 41815?) and they then make the dubious claim that the Klasies frontal 16425 may be immature (strangely, they do not mention this possibility for the similarly fragmentary Vindija frontal pieces). Frayer et al. misrepresent our views on the modernity of the Klasies material, which can be found more accurately in Brauer 1984b:383, Brauer et al. 1992, and Stringer 1989b:79-80). In fact we fully agree with Smith's statement (1992a:148) concerning the African early modern specimens that "the somewhat primi- tive aspects of certain features in this sample (particularly in the KRM fossils) . . . are to be expected in early representatives of modern humans and help to establish their phylogenetic connection to earlier, more archaic Af- ricans." However, we cannot verify Smith's (1992b:247) use of Caspari and Wolpoff's data on the KRM 16651 zygomatic to demon- strate its "archaic" nature, since this is based on a misunderstanding of Martin's measure- ment 48(3a). Moreover, we have even found specimens comparable in size and morphology to the Klasies zygomatic among recent European material.

The early late Pleistocene dating of the Klasies material is (at last) grudgingly accepted by Frayer et al., but the dating of most of the other African material used by supporters of RAO is subject to uninformed dismissal. However, in discussing their own supporting data for MRE in non-African sites (e.g., for Vindija and WLH 50), they completely avoid discussions of dating. This is very unfortu- nate, for the establishment of interregional gene flow and supposedly continuous and gradual morphological change through time also requires accurate dating. In fact, accord- ing to one informed review of radiometric dates from China (Chen and Zhang 1991), there is good evidence of a coexistence of Homo erectus and "archaic Homo sapiens" in the region, rather than the "continuing modern- ization of the Chinese cranium" that we read about on page 25.

Africa

The weaknesses in the article by Frayer et al. are most apparent in their discussion of the African evidence for modern human origins. It is right that this evidence should be subjected to critical scrutiny, but it is wrong to apply more severe standards in the evalu- ation of this material than are applied elsewhere, and we have already given examples

of such double standards with regard to dating evidence and comparison of the Vindija and Klasies fossils. Their discussion con- stantly devalues the African material from the middle to early late Pleistocene, when the record is, in fact, quite comparable with that which the authors praise from China, and far exceeds in completeness and chronological control that known from Australasia. Certain statements make us wonder whether the authors have actually ever carefully read our assessments of the African material. Contrary to the statement on page 34, we regard the Irhoud, Ngaloba, and Florisbad specimens not as "anatomically modern" but as part of an archaic sample that nevertheless shows transitional features (incidentally, contrary to the statement on page 36, this sample does include mandibles such as Irhoud 3, and perhaps also the Haua Fteah and Cave of Hearths specimens). Again on page 34, one of us (CBS) certainly did not analyze "the all-plas- ter reconstruction of the missing face" of Omo-Kibish 1, nor draw any significance from a phenetic resemblance to "Norwe- gians" (such a specific resemblance would, in fact, be unexpected from a RAO viewpoint).

The Levant

Regarding the Levant, we feel that Frayer et al. present a very confused picture from data from this region also. First, we should mention that, contrary to pages 36 to 37, the Bible does not identify exactly where Eve lived! Moving on to discuss the relationships of the Skhul and Qafzeh samples, Frayer et al. assert that the specimens show no particular resemblances to "Africans" or to samples from the European Upper Paleolithic. We would certainly dispute this: we have already mentioned body proportion similarities between earlier African material, the Skhul- Qafzeh samples, and early Upper Paleolithic skeletons. Moreover, multivariate and phenetic techniques show that the archaic crania most similar in shape to the Skhul- Qafzeh fossils are found in Africa, and that the Skhul-Qafzeh sample is the most plausible early late Pleistocene ancestral form for early Upper Paleolithic crania (Brauer and Rim- bach 1990; Stringer 1992a; Waddle 1993). Given the apparently large chronological gap between the Skhul-Qafzeh specimens and the European Upper Paleolithics, and the lack of comparably aged and complete material from many other areas, it would be wise to remain cautious about specific links, but the Levantine early modern sample certainly




shows an appropriate combination of features to qualify it as the most plausible link yet found between probable late middle Pleisto- cene African ancestors and their European descendants.

Regarding morphological and metrical variation in Levantine samples and the claim that early modern and Neanderthal specimens were essentially members of the same polytypic population, we and several others feel that such a view is very unrealistic (see, e.g., Bar Yosef and Vandermeersch 1993; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Foote 1993; Rak 1993; Stringer 1989a; Trinkaus 1992; Van Vark and Bilsborough 1991). On the other hand, this does not mean we dismiss evidence of significant variation within the Levantine samples such as that presented by Corruccini (1992). We would agree with Corruccini in his recognition of archaic features in specimens such as Skhul 9, but we would disagree with his attribution of these features as necessarily "Neanderthal" resemblances. When all the data are considered, such features could be interpreted as signs of gene flow between early moderns and Neanderthals (GB) or could be related to African fossils such as Irhoud or Ngaloba (CBS), which resemble Neanderthals in certain aspects of vault form but differ markedly from them when facial shape is also considered (see, e.g., Hublin 1992). Finally, in considering Corruccini's (1992) study, we would like to note one last example of double standards by Frayer et al. While reporting Corruccini's work as under- mining ET and RAO viewpoints, they strangely fail to quote his agreement with other workers in also finding "no support for the multiregional continuity idea" and no evidence for an ancient origin of modern regional differences (Corruccini 1992:444)!

Concluding Remarks

We will not deal with Frayer et al.'s dismissal of mtDNA evidence for ET and RAO, be- cause the debate has moved on quickly, and while the original phylogenetic conclusions of Cann et al. (1987) are certainly now generally viewed as premature, it is by no means established that they were wrong (see, e.g., Gibbons 1993; Harpendingetal. 1993). More likely to be wrong, in our opinion, is the claim by Frayer et al. that both mtDNA and nuclear DNA studies support the predictions of MRE (see, e.g., Mountain et al. 1992). The statement in the penultimate paragraph by Frayer et al. that they use a Popperian approach to science is perhaps the most extraordinary

claim of their entire article. They have taken a hypothesis (ET) that none of them believe in and, by a highly biased approach, claim to have disproved it. At the same time, through a differently biased approach, they have only presented data supporting the opposing MRE view. We do not think Sir Karl Popper would recognize such an unbalanced proce- dure as Popperian. Moreover, they imply that they will now turn their attention to the refu- tation of MRE. We very much look forward to this, and we should certainly be able to save them a considerable amount of time in their efforts, if they would like to contact us!

References Cited

Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Bernard Vandermeersch 1993 Modern Humans in the Levant. Sci-

entific American 268(5):64-70. Brauer, Gunter

1984a The 'Afro-European Sapiens Hy- pothesis' and Hominid Evolution in East Asia during the Late Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 69:145-165.

1984b A Craniological Approach on the Origin of Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens in Africa and Implications for the Appearance of Modern Europeans. In The Origin of Modern Humans. Fred H. Smith and F. Spencer, eds. Pp. 327-410. New York: A. R. Liss.

1992 Africa's Place in the Evolution of Homo sapiens. In Continuity or Replace- ment: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evo- lution. G. Brauer and F. H. Smith, eds. Pp. 83-98. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Brauer, Gunter, Hilary J. Deacon, and Friedrich Zipfel

1992 Comment on the New Maxillary Finds from Klasies River, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 23:419- 422.

Brauer, Gunter, and Klaus Rimbach 1990 Late Archaic and Modern Homo sa-

piens from Europe, Africa and Southwest Asia: Craniometric Comparisons and Phylogenetic Implications. Journal of Human Evolution 19: 789-807.

Brown, Peter 1989 Coobol Creek. Terra Australis. Can-

berra: Australian National University. 1992 Recent Human Evolution in East

Asia and Australasia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Lon- don, B.337:235-242.



COMMENTARIES 423

Cann, Rebecca L. 1992 A Mitochondrial Perspective on Re-

placement or Continuity in Human Evo- lution. In Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. G. Brauer and F. H. Smith, eds. Pp. 65- 73. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Cann, Rebecca, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Wilson

1987 Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution. Nature 325:32-36.

Chen, Tiemei, and Yinyun Zhang 1991 Palaeolithic Chronology and Possi-

ble Co-Existence of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in China. World Archaeol- ogy 23:147-154.

Corruccini, Robert S. 1992 Metrical Reconsideration of the

Skhul IV and IX and Border Cave 1 Cra- nia in the Context of Modern Human Origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:433-446.

Foote, M. 1993 Human Cranial Variability: A Meth-

odological Comment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90:377-379.

Frayer, David W. 1992 The Persistence of Neanderthal Fea-

tures in Post-Neanderthal Europeans. In Continuity or Replacement: Controver- sies in Homo sapiens Evolution. G. Brauer and F. H. Smith, eds. Pp. 179-188. Rot- terdam: Balkema.

Gibbons, Ann 1993 Mitochondrial Eve Refuses to Die.

Science 259:1249-1250. Greene, David L., and George J. Armelagos

1972 The Wadi Halfa Mesolithic Popula- tion. University of Massachusetts Re- search Report 11. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

Grun, Rainer, and Chris Stringer 1991 Electron Spin Resonance Dating

and the Evolution of Modern Humans. Archaeometry 33:153-199.

Habgood, Philip J. 1989 The Origin of Anatomically Modern

Humans in Australasia. In The Human Revolution. Paul Mellars and Chris Stringer, eds. Pp. 245-273. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Harpending, Henry C., Stephen T. Sherry, Alan R. Rogers, and Mark Stoneking

1993 The Genetic Structure of Ancient Human Populations. Current Anthro- pology 34:483-496.

Holliday, Trenton, and Erik Trinkaus 1991 Limb/Trunk Proportions in Nean-

dertals and Early Anatomically Modern

Humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement 12:93-94.

Hublin, Jean-Jacques 1992 Recent Human Evolution in North

Western Africa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lon- don B.337:185-191.

Lahr, Marta M. 1994 The Multiregional Model of Mod-

ern Human Origins: A Reassessment of Its Morphological Basis. Journal of Hu- man Evolution 26:23-56.

Mountain, Joanna L., Alice A. Lin, Anne M. Bowcock, and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza

1992 Evolution of Modern Humans: Evi- dence from Nuclear DNA Polymor- phisms. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B.337:159-165.

Pope, Geoffrey G. 1992 Craniofacial Evidence for the Ori-

gin of Modern Humans in China. Year- book of Physical Anthropology 35:243- 298.

Rak, Yoel 1993 Morphological Variation in Homo

neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens in the Levant: A Biogeographic Modern. In Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution. W. H. Kimbel and L. B. Mar- tin, eds. Pp. 523-536. NewYork: Plenum.

Ruff, Chris 1991 Climate and Body Shape in Homi-

nid Evolution. Journal of Human Evolu- tion 21:81-105.

Smith, Fred H. 1992a The Role of Continuity in Modern

Human Origins. In Continuity or Re- placement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Gunter Brauer and Fred H. Smith. eds. Pp. 145-156. Rotterdam: Balkema.

1992b Models and Realities in Modern Human Origins: The African Fossil Evi- dence. Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc B.337:243-250.

Smith, Fred H., Anthony B. Falsetti, and Steven M. Donnelly

1989 Modern Human Origins. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 32:35-68.

Smith, Fred H., and Erik Trinkaus 1991 Les origines de l'homme moderne

en Europe centrale: Un cas de con- tinuite. In Aux Origines d'Homo sapiens.J.J. Hublin and M. A. Tillier. eds. Pp. 251-290. Presses Universitaires France, Paris.

Stringer, Chris B. 1989a The Origin of Early Modern Hu-

mans: A Comparison of the European and Non-European Evidence. In The



[96, 1994 [96, 1994 424 424 AMERICAN ANTHROPOI,OGIST AMERICAN ANTHROPOI,OGIST

Human Revolution. Paul Mellars and Chris Stringer, eds. Pp. 232-244. Edin- burgh: Edinburgh University Press.

1989b Documenting the Origin of Mod- ern Humans. In The Emergence of Mod- ern Humans. Erik Trinkaus ed. Pp. 67- 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1992a Reconstructing Recent Human Evolution. Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. B.337:217-224.

1992b Replacement, Continuity and the Origin of Homo sapiens. In Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Gunter Brauer and Fred H. Smith. eds. Pp. 9-24. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Thorne, Alan G., and Milford H. Wolpoff 1992 All About Eve. Scientific American

267(3):6. Trinkaus, Erik

1981 Neanderthal Limb Proportions and Cold Adaptation. In Aspects of Human Evolution. Chris B. Stringer, ed. Pp. 187- 224. London: Taylor and Francis.

1992 Morphological Contrasts between the Near Eastern Qafzeh-Skhul and Late Archaic Samples: Grounds for a Behav- ioral Difference? In The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura, eds. Pp. 277-294. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.

Van Vark, Gerrit N., and Alan Bilsborough 1991 Shaking the Family Tree. Science

253:834. Waddle, Diane

1993 The Evolution of Modern Humans: Testing Models of Modern Human Ori- gins Using Matrix Correlation Methods. Ph.D. thesis, SUNY Stony Brook.

Webb, Stephen 1990 Cranial Thickening in an Australian

Hominid as a Possible Palaeoepidemio- logical Indicator. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:403-412.

Wolpoff, Milford H., Xinzhi Wu, and Alan G. Thorne

1984 Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence from East Asia. InThe Origins of Modern Humans. Fred H. Smith and F. Spencer, eds. Pp. 411-483. New York: A. R. Liss.

Wolpoff, Milford H., Alan G. Thorne, Jan Jel/nek, and Yinyun Zhang

1991 The Case for Sinking Homo erectus: 100 Years of Pithecanthropus is Enough! Abstracts Conference 100 Jahre Pithe-

Human Revolution. Paul Mellars and Chris Stringer, eds. Pp. 232-244. Edin- burgh: Edinburgh University Press.

1989b Documenting the Origin of Mod- ern Humans. In The Emergence of Mod- ern Humans. Erik Trinkaus ed. Pp. 67- 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1992a Reconstructing Recent Human Evolution. Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. B.337:217-224.

1992b Replacement, Continuity and the Origin of Homo sapiens. In Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Gunter Brauer and Fred H. Smith. eds. Pp. 9-24. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Thorne, Alan G., and Milford H. Wolpoff 1992 All About Eve. Scientific American

267(3):6. Trinkaus, Erik

1981 Neanderthal Limb Proportions and Cold Adaptation. In Aspects of Human Evolution. Chris B. Stringer, ed. Pp. 187- 224. London: Taylor and Francis.

1992 Morphological Contrasts between the Near Eastern Qafzeh-Skhul and Late Archaic Samples: Grounds for a Behav- ioral Difference? In The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura, eds. Pp. 277-294. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.

Van Vark, Gerrit N., and Alan Bilsborough 1991 Shaking the Family Tree. Science

253:834. Waddle, Diane

1993 The Evolution of Modern Humans: Testing Models of Modern Human Ori- gins Using Matrix Correlation Methods. Ph.D. thesis, SUNY Stony Brook.

Webb, Stephen 1990 Cranial Thickening in an Australian

Hominid as a Possible Palaeoepidemio- logical Indicator. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:403-412.

Wolpoff, Milford H., Xinzhi Wu, and Alan G. Thorne

1984 Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence from East Asia. InThe Origins of Modern Humans. Fred H. Smith and F. Spencer, eds. Pp. 411-483. New York: A. R. Liss.

Wolpoff, Milford H., Alan G. Thorne, Jan Jel/nek, and Yinyun Zhang

1991 The Case for Sinking Homo erectus: 100 Years of Pithecanthropus is Enough! Abstracts Conference 100 Jahre Pithe-

canthropus-das Homo erectus Problem. Frankfurt.

Getting It Straight

DAWD W. FRAYER Department of Anthropology University of Kansas

MIILFORD H. WOILPOFF Department of Anthropology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

AIAN G. THORNE Department of Prehistory Australian National University

FRED H. SMITH Department of Anthropology Northern Illinois University

GEOFFREY G. POPE

Department of Anthropology William Paterson College

The old theory, claiming that man evolved exclusively from one center whence he spread over the Old World each time afresh after having entered a new phase of evolution, no longer tallies with the pa- laeontological facts. [Weidenreich 1940:381 ]

We have puzzled over why this long-lasting debate about modern human origins has been so intense. The content and tone of this reply to our AA article suggest some answers to this question. We address these below, as well as the individual comments made about our work. This reply does not include all our disagreements with Stringer and Brauer's comment or with their other publications; but in response to their unacceptable as- sumption that specifics of their publications that we do not criticize can be taken as areas of agreement with them, we will try to address as many details as possible.

The Muddle in the Middle

One of our colleagues is particularly con- cerned that established and experienced pa-

leoanthropologists seem to draw such different conclusions from the same data. While it is certainly not the first time this has occurred, we believe this debate can shed some light on how this happens. In this exchange we have found that there are three reasons why controversy persists over modern human origins.

canthropus-das Homo erectus Problem. Frankfurt.

Getting It Straight

DAWD W. FRAYER Department of Anthropology University of Kansas

MIILFORD H. WOILPOFF Department of Anthropology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

AIAN G. THORNE Department of Prehistory Australian National University

FRED H. SMITH Department of Anthropology Northern Illinois University

GEOFFREY G. POPE

Department of Anthropology William Paterson College

The old theory, claiming that man evolved exclusively from one center whence he spread over the Old World each time afresh after having entered a new phase of evolution, no longer tallies with the pa- laeontological facts. [Weidenreich 1940:381 ]

We have puzzled over why this long-lasting debate about modern human origins has been so intense. The content and tone of this reply to our AA article suggest some answers to this question. We address these below, as well as the individual comments made about our work. This reply does not include all our disagreements with Stringer and Brauer's comment or with their other publications; but in response to their unacceptable as- sumption that specifics of their publications that we do not criticize can be taken as areas of agreement with them, we will try to address as many details as possible.

The Muddle in the Middle

One of our colleagues is particularly con- cerned that established and experienced pa-

leoanthropologists seem to draw such different conclusions from the same data. While it is certainly not the first time this has occurred, we believe this debate can shed some light on how this happens. In this exchange we have found that there are three reasons why controversy persists over modern human origins.



Documents

Methods, Misreading, and Bias