Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement

Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter

Dennis De Melo


Regional Continuity Versus Replacement


(5)



Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement
Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter
Dennis De Melo


For this research paper, I decided to choose the option of Regional Continuity and
Replacement. At first look, it seems like either could be a great hypothesis to explain some things
behind evolution. I will talk about both theories, present detail, and give my own opinion on the
most correct model of these choices.
The Regional Continuity Model (1, P 281) suggests local populations in Europe, Africa, and
Asia continued their evolutionary development from the pre-modern Middle Pleistocene body types
to the anatomically modern humans.
The Replacement model argues (1, P 281) modern humans originated in Africa, then
migrated out into other areas of the world after their population increased. There are different levels
of this model, ranging from partial replacement (some interbreeding) to complete replacement (no
interbreeding).
According to Donald Johnson (2), the Replacement model is the best current explanation for
the beginning of modern humans, with genetic observations such as:
Mitochondrial DNA consistency
Similarity between human populations when compared to closest "relatives."
Chimpanzees have much more genetic variation from the same population.
Higher degree of genetic variation in African population suggests humans first arose
in Africa, and had longer to accumulate genetic diversity.
Low amount of genetic diversity in modern populations suggests our beginning may
reflect a founding-style population.
Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement
Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter
Dennis De Melo

In support, with a little different emphasis to the replacement theory, Trenton Holliday (3) argues a
replacement, not excluding a partial component based on case studies of body make-up. Trenton
notes the case studies cited in his work reveal a clear tendency for the Early Upper Palaeolithic
sample to compare with recent Africans, while Late and Middle Upper Palaeolithic to compare more
with recent Europeans. Trenton Holliday (3) states the case study reflects elevated gene flow and
population dispersal from Africa, with adaptation to different climates over time. This study does not
rule out the possibility of a small contribution of genes from other species like Neanderthals to the
later generations.
Harold and Mellers (4; P 186) argue based on archaeology finds. The model points to
continuity based on:
Technological characteristics
Raw material gathering and use
Patterns and plant exploitation
Evidence of symbolic or ritual behaviour
Settlement patterns.
Harold and Mellers (4, P 186) go on to discuss that not all regions exhibit continuity on all
levels, and that the rate of change is not consistently the same everywhere, backed by variables tied
to the Upper and Middle Palaeolithic transition.
To contrast the replacement model completely, there are also arguments for Continuity.
Supporters claim genetic evidence to support the Continuity model. Human betaglobin (5) has been
found to be widely distributed in Asia, but not in Africa. Based on the assumption this gene
originated more than 200,000 years ago due to fossil evidence, it argues the claim that a complete
Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement
Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter
Dennis De Melo

Replacement model could not have taken place due to this genetic evidence in a large amount of
living population in Asia.
Also in contrast (5), supporters of the Continuity model declare there has been a connection
of some physical traits from archaic humans to modern humans in Europe and Asia dating back to
over 100,000 years ago. For example, Europeans tend to have relatively heavy brow ridges, and a
high angle of noses reminiscent of Neanderthals (5). Chinese populations reflect facial
characteristics that can be seen in an Asian archaic fossils dating back 200,000 years ago (5). In
addition, East Asians today commonly have shovel shaped incisors, while Africans and Europeans
rarely do (5). The argument of a direct genetic link between the Asian Homo erectus and modern
Asians further gives credit to the Continuity model.
Both of these arguments have merit, and without some type of window into the past, it seems
that it is more likely that a combination of the two might have occurred. Harold & Mellars (4; P 189)
go on to claim that if no differences in adaptation are detectable through the Middle to Upper-
Palaeolithic transition, or if the only detectable differences are the rate of change from one area to
another, than the arguments for the Replacement theory are basically taken down to nothing more
than the claim of biological superiority.
Both the class book (1), the article (5), and even some other areas I came across when I
researched this discuss a Partial Replacement model. This model accepts both the Replacement and
Continuity model have issues with accounts of genetic and fossil data (5). This new way of thinking
basically combines both Replacement and Continuity models.

Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement
Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter
Dennis De Melo

Gunter Braur of the University of Hamburg suggests the first modern humans did evolve
from Africa, but when they migrated to other regions, they simply did not "replace" existing humans
in the areas (5). Gunter Brauer goes onto suggest that limited interbreeding with the older species,
resulting in hybrid populations. The article (5) goes on to consider an example in Europe where the
archaeological record for the first modern humans shows up suddenly about 45,000 years ago, which
could be explained by migration to the area through the Mediterranean coastal route. Based on the
timeline, this means they shared the area with Neanderthals for another 12,000 years or so. During a
period of this length and geographical isolation, interbreeding could have happened, and the hybrid
version of both eventually became modern Europeans (5). A discovery in a Romanian cave in 2003
of a partial skeleton with a mix of anatomical features supports this hypothesis (5).
The reason I bring up the Partial Replacement example above, is because I think it is a great
example of something much more likely to have happened. I understand the way we think is modern,
and that I could not even begin to try and think the way the ancient homo's did. However, based on
both the Replacement and Continuity models sometimes not presenting clear evidence to make it
indisputable, also evidence of mixed species in the fossil records, along with how I see things today
mixing on a global scale in mere generations (due to technology and gene flow); I believe it is much
more likely the Partial Replacement model is the likely answer to this question. Think about it, if
species are technically close enough, it is very likely interbreeding took place along the way.
Although the modern humans were essentially the baseline, added genetic features that show up in
both fossil records and in living populations today reflect this is most likely the case. With the
advancement of genetics, it is very revealing there is already evidence of humans interbreeding from
different areas over the last 600,000 years when DNA sequencing is analyzed (5).
Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement
Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter
Dennis De Melo

Based off contradicting evidence between complete Replacement versus Continuity models,
it seems likely that the Partial Replacement model, or "Assimilation" might have been what really
happened to make us who we are today, both in terms of a modern homo species, but also in terms of
certain genetics and phenotypes as well.
I think this Partial Replacement model serves us best to deal with what we are going through
when we talk about becoming a global community in today's area. For first time in recorded history,
we will have detailed records to show the eventual changes in our population through the next
thousand or more generations potentially, even though we are all considered very close genetically
already.
In summary, the Partial Replacement model makes the most sense to me because of a
combination of conflicting evidence against each on its own, and evidence coming to be about
supporting the Partial Replacement theory.

Research Paper - Regional Continuity versus Replacement
Anthropology 1020 - Dr. Porter
Dennis De Melo


Works Cited

1. Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan. Essentials of Physical Anthropology 8th
Edition.2011. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

2. Johanson, Donald. Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa? May 2001. Web
July 2014. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

3. Holliday, Trenton. Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. May
1997. Web July 2014. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248496901116

4. Dibble, Harold L. & Mellars, Paul. The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability.
Jan 2003. Web July 2014.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5yjA3wTv8EoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA183&dq=replacem
ent+regional+continuity&ots=K24_i354b7&sig=Rh2jMjrr-5m7fCw4I-DjWCC-
W9Q#v=onepage&q=replacement%20regional%20continuity&f=false

5. O'Neil, Dennis. Early Modern Homo sapians. Web July 2014.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm


ePortfolio address:


http://dennisdemelo.weebly.com/anthropology-1020.html