The evidence as set forth by Chris Stringer (2014) in his
opinion article in the journal Cell “Why we are not all multiregionalists now” makes little sense.
Consider the second sentence of the first paragraph.
“The fact that small portions of the DNA of recent Homo sapiens derive
from ancient populations in more than one region of the world makes our origins
‘multiregional’, but does that mean that the multiregional model of modern
human origins has been proved correct?”
By recognising that the evidence supports a multiregional
origin Stringer implicitly contradicts the title of his own piece. This is
nonsensical and he proceeds to provide a humpty dumpty argument in favour of
his “personal thoughts” about whether or not multiregionalism has been proven
correct when what science demands is refutation. Multiregionalism does not
imply unconstrained interbreeding but recognises that it occurs. Any model
involving reticular introgression is essentially in accordance with
Weidenreich’s 1946 “trellis” model of polycentric human evolution (Bednarik
2011). The “personal view” put forward seems hardly relevant in the context of
the biological definition of distinct species. It relies on a perceived
morphological separation between ancient hominin fossils and so-called modern
humans. Stringer presents this idea by hypothetically juxtaposing archaic
characteristics with modern, suggesting this would result in simultaneously
opposed features. Indeed this ignores completely the abundant fossil evidence
presenting a mosaic of archaic and modern features (Bednarik 2011).
Foetalization (neoteny) and self-domestication as advanced by Bednarik (2011)
are not addressed providing as they do the only coherent explanation for the
rapid gracilisation evident in the fossil record occurring as it did at
approximately the same time in all four continents. A period which saw brain
volume decrease at a rate 37 times that of the previous expansion observed
throughout the latter part of the Pleistocene at a time (between 50-30,000
years ago) when brains size was supposedly at a premium (Bednarik 2014).
Stringer attempts to ridicule Bednarik’s suggestion that Out
of Africa models were formulated on the basis of a hoax by quoting a 1975 paper
by Protsch instead of the original hypothesis of 1973 cited by Bednarik (2011).
Bednarik notes that it was Brauer who “recycled” the ideas and fake data of
Protsch in 1984 by using these and other unsound and since refuted information.
It was Brauer’s work which according to Bednarik inspired the “replacement
hypothesis” later dubbed the African Eve theory by the media. And it was the
replacement model or Eve theory that Stringer so actively promoted. Critically
this model categorically excludes the possibility of any genetic contribution
from robusts (archaics) once these “moderns” had arisen. In other words, the
claim that these “African ancestors” were incapable of interbreeding with
contemporaneous hominins was central to the specific ‘version’ of OA Chris
Stringer promoted across the mass media and now firmly entrenched in the
Anglo-American Pleistocene archaeological narrative. Stringer fails to address
why these false datings were not picked up earlier by either himself or his
colleagues, especially when as Bednarik (2011) reminds us, that concerning the
Stetten specimens from Vogelherd “…it had always been perfectly transparent
that they were much younger deriving from intrusive Neolithic interments”.
Fundamental errors, such as drawing inference from direct
comparisons between the genes of present day humans and ancient humans living
20-30,000 years ago, escape discussion. Yet it is clear that neither could
interbreed because they did not exist at the same time. We now have
confirmation that there was no biological barrier and this is exactly what the
Eve theory could not tolerate. Further inference is made to perceived
behavioural gaps in the archaeological record between perceived groups of
archaic hominins which pays no heed at all to taphonomic logic nor accumulating
evidence that there was never a “replacement” as demanded by Eve theory. The
Aurgnacian has now been demonstrated to be directly associated with
Neanderthals (Bednarik 2011) but it seems Stringer may be one of the last to
comprehend the full ramifications and extent to which the dominant Pleistocene
archaeological narrative he has been spearheading has lead the Anglo-American
school so far astray.
Ultimately Stringer makes another stab in the dark to
salvage the genetic argument by making an un referenced claim that several
thousand genetic mutations fixed in present populations are further evidence of
modern human’s uniqueness rather than accept the most parsimonious explanation
that culturally determined sexual selection guaranteed the survival of these
and other maladaptive mutations contrary to natural selection. There is no
refutation to the detailed examinations of many of these deleterious mutations
and their often very recent aetiology in the history of the human species as
put forward by Bednarik (2011, 2012).
One of the key issues is the failure of Stringer to
recognise that the hominin fossil record cannot be considered to be
representative of population sizes or distribution and therefore it should come
as no surprise to learn that he concludes the piece by surmising that in the
“big picture” we are predominantly of Recent African Origin, a position he has
in many ways ungracefully cornered himself into.
References
Bednarik, R. G., 2008. The Mythical Moderns. Journal of
World Prehistory: 1-18.
Bednarik, R. G., 2011. The Human Condition, Springer, New
York.
Bednarik, R. G., 2012. Aeitology of Hominin behaviour,
HOMO—Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63: 319-335.
Bednarik, R. G. 2014. Exograms, Rock Art Research 31(1):
47-62.
