The Y chromosome and the replacement hypothesis.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Africa↗
Biomedical subjects
J Hawks
Publications and source records attributed to J Hawks.
Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory.
The replacement theory of modern human origins stipulates that populations outside of Africa were replaced by a new African species of modern humans. Here we test the replacement theory in two peripheral areas far from Africa by examining the ancestry of early modern Australians and Central Europeans. Analysis of pairwise differences was used to determine if dual ancestry in local archaic populations and earlier modern populations from the Levant and/or Africa could be rejected. The data imply that both have a dual ancestry. The diversity of recent humans cannot result exclusively from a single Late Pleistocene dispersal.
Africa↗
Brief communication: paleoanthropology and the population genetics of ancient genes.
The Mezmaiskaya cave mtDNA is similar in many ways to the Feldhofer cave Neandertal sequence and the more recently obtained Vindija cave sequence. If we accept the contention that the Mezmaiskaya cave specimen is a Neandertal infant, its mtDNA provides no new information about the fate of the European Neandertals. However, there is reason to believe that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal, and this places its importance in another light, because it delimits the possible hypotheses of Neandertal and recent human genetic relationships. One possibility is a that the pattern found in ancient mtDNA results from the replacement of an isolated gene pool (Neandertals) by one of its contemporaries (modern humans). A second possibility is natural selection expressed as the substitution of an advantageous mtDNA variant within a single large species, including both Neandertals and modern humans. The geologic, archaeological, and dating evidence shows the Mezmaiskaya cave infant to be a burial from a level even more recent than the Upper Paleolithic preserved at the site, and its anatomy does not contradict the assessment that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal. Therefore, the second pattern can be favored over the first.
Animals↗
Multiregional, not multiple origins.
Multiregional evolution is a model to account for the pattern of human evolution in the Pleistocene. The underlying hypothesis is that a worldwide network of genic exchanges, between evolving human populations that continually divide and reticulate, provides a frame of population interconnections that allows both species-wide evolutionary change and local distinctions and differentiation. "Multiregional" does not mean independent multiple origins, ancient divergence of modern populations, simultaneous appearance of adaptive characters in different regions, or parallel evolution. A valid understanding of multiregional evolution would go a long way toward reducing the modern human origins controversy.
Animals↗
An Australasian test of the recent African origin theory using the WLH-50 calvarium.
This analysis investigates the ancestry of a single modern human specimen from Australia, WLH-50 (Thorne et al., in preparation; Webb, 1989). Evaluating its ancestry is important to our understanding of modern human origins in Australasia because the prevailing models of human origins make different predictions for the ancestry of this specimen, and others like it. Some authors believe in the validity of a complete replacement theory and propose that modern humans in Australasia descended solely from earlier modern human populations found in Late Pleistocene Africa and the Levant. These ancestral modern populations are believed to have completely replaced other archaic human populations, including the Ngandong hominids of Indonesia. According to this recent African origin theory, the archaic humans from Indonesia are classified as Homo erectus, a different evolutionary species that could not have contributed to the ancestry of modern Australasians. Therefore this theory of complete replacement makes clear predictions concerning the ancestry of the specimen WLH-50. We tested these predictions using two methods: a discriminant analysis of metric data for three samples that are potential ancestors of WLH-50 (Ngandong, Late Pleistocene Africans, Levant hominids from Skhul and Qafzeh) and a pairwise difference analysis of nonmetric data for individuals within these samples. The results of these procedures provide an unambiguous refutation of a model of complete replacement within this region, and indicate that the Ngandong hominids or a population like them may have contributed significantly to the ancestry of WLH-50. We therefore contend that Ngandong hominids should be classified within the evolutionary species, Homo sapiens. The Multiregional model of human evolution has the expectation that Australasian ancestry is in all three of the potentially ancestral groups and best explains modern Australasian origins.
Animals↗
Population bottlenecks and Pleistocene human evolution.
We review the anatomical and archaeological evidence for an early population bottleneck in humans and bracket the time when it could have occurred. We outline the subsequent demographic changes that the archaeological evidence of range expansions and contractions address, and we examine how inbreeding effective population size provides an alternative view of past population size change. This addresses the question of other, more recent, population size bottlenecks, and we review nonrecombining and recombining genetic systems that may reflect them. We examine how these genetic data constrain the possibility of significant population size bottlenecks (i.e., of sufficiently small size and/or long duration to minimize genetic variation in autosomal and haploid systems) at several different critical times in human history. Different constraints appear in nonrecombining and recombining systems, and among the autosomal loci most are incompatible with any Pleistocene population size expansions. Microsatellite data seem to show Pleistocene population size expansions, but in aggregate they are difficult to interpret because different microsatellite studies do not show the same expansion. The archaeological data are only compatible with a few of these analyses, most prominently with data from Alu elements, and we use these facts to question whether the view of the past from analysis of inbreeding effective population size is valid. Finally, we examine the issue of whether inbreeding effective population size provides any reasonable measure of the actual past size of the human species. We contend that if the evidence of a population size bottleneck early in the evolution of our lineage is accepted, most genetic data either lack the resolution to address subsequent changes in the human population or do not meet the assumptions required to do so validly. It is our conclusion that, at the moment, genetic data cannot disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck 2 MYA at the origin of our lineage and extending through the Pleistocene. Archaeological and paleontological data indicate that this model is too oversimplified to be an accurate reflection of detailed population history, and therefore we find that genetic data lack the resolution to validly reflect many details of Pleistocene human population change. However, there is one detail that these data are sufficient to address. Both genetic and anthropological data are incompatible with the hypothesis of a recent population size bottleneck. Such an event would be expected to leave a significant mark across numerous genetic loci and observable anatomical traits, but while some subsets of data are compatible with a recent population size bottleneck, there is no consistently expressed effect that can be found across the range where it should appear, and this absence disproves the hypothesis.
Animals↗