McKay Jenkins

ANTH 1020
4/22/2017

Regional Continuity Model vs. Replacement Model

Every human on the earth today is classified as a Homo sapien. Modern humans did not

show up until recent history. However, the term modern in this sense is in comparison to all of

history. The reality is that our species started to evolve about 200,000 years ago. Through new

technologies and discoveries, physical anthropologists have been able to discover and track the

evolution of the modern human and how we evolved into what we are today. Using the scientific

method, physical anthropologists have discovered concrete answers to questions that scientists

have been asking for years. However, anthropologists do not necessarily agree on every issue.

There has been debate over the origins of modern humans. We have evidence that shows

our evolution, but how that evolution took place is still a topic of discussion. There are two main

theories to describe the origins of modern humans. I will discuss each of them in this paper. The

first is the Regional Continuity Model, also known as Multiregional Evolution. The second is

the Replacement Model, also known as the Out-of-Africa Evolution. Both theories offer valid

points as to how modern humans came to be, but they differ in the approach of their

explanations.

The Regional Continuity Model is a theory that is linked to paleoanthropologist Milford

Wolpoff. This theory states that modern humans evolved from separate groups of archaic

humans located in different regions of the Old World. According to this theory, modern humans

evolved in separate populations located in Europe, Africa, and Asia. (Rogers 1995, pg. 674) As

with any theory, there are arguments against its validity. We will discuss this later when we

compare the Regional Continuity Model to the Replacement Model.

 The Replacement Model of modern human origin states that all modern humans first

evolved in Africa. The evolution first took place there before we later migrated to other parts of

the globe. This is in direct opposition to the Regional Continuity Model because it suggests that

the evolution took place when we were all one population in Africa whereas the Regional

Continuity Model suggests that we first migrated from Africa and then evolved into what we

now know as modern humans. (Stringer and Andrews, 1988)

New discoveries in genetics have influenced the way we discuss these two theories.

Through new genetic techniques, we have been able to further investigate the more recent history

of the evolution of modern humans. Scientists have been able to retrieve genetic information

from a wide array of locations and compare them. Something interesting I thought they found is

that through genetics, these scientists have been able to find very distinct patterns and

relationships that serve as evidence for their theories. Through these genetic studies, we have

found that ancient African populations are actually much more diverse than populations located

elsewhere in the world. (Stringer and Gamble, 1993)

Several discoveries have given us evidence to argue for both theories of modern human

origins. For the Regional Continuity Model, fossil evidence has been used to draw support for the

theory. Anthropologist that believe in the Regional Continuity Model claim that some anatomical

traits have carried on from archaic humans to modern humans in Europe and Asia. For example,

these scientists often cite that many Europeans have heavy brow ridges and high angled

noses, similar to the noses found on Neanderthal fossils. These same scientists also cite the fact

that some Chinese facial characteristics can be seen in ancient Asian fossils. (Rogers 1995, pg. 676)

Homo erectus had shovel-shaped incisors which is a common characteristic of East Asians today
but not of modern Africans or Europeans. (Rogers 1995, pg. 675) All of these studies have been

used as evidence by scientists trying to prove the validity of the Regional Continuity Model.

There are two sources of evidence that scientists use to support the Replacement Model.

However fossil records seem to be the evidence these scientists continually refer back to and there

is a good reason why. The earliest fossils of modern Homo sapiens skeletons come from Africa and

are dated to nearly 200,000 years ago. These fossils do not appear in Southwest Asia until around

100,000 years ago. Other locations in the Old World do not have evidence of similar fossils

until 60,000-40,000 years ago. (Stringer and Gamble, 1993) The reason these scientists use this as

their supporting evidence is because unless modern human remains dating to over 200,000 years

ago or earlier are found in Europe or East Asia, the Replacement Model better explains

the fossil data for those regions. (Stringer and Andrews, 1988)

As far as which theory I believe to be true, it is really hard for me to decide. Both sides

have evidence to support their claims even though they are very different theories all together. That

being said, both sides also have aspects of their theories that have little evidence to support it. If I

had to absolutely pick one theory, I would probably choose the Replacement Model. The reason I

say that is because the Replacement Model scientists use fossils as evidence for their theory. The

locations these fossils were found in and the age they were dated to makes more sense to me than

the anatomical argument that the scientists of the Regional Continuity Model use. It makes sense

that modern humans first evolved in one location and then migrated as opposed to the argument that

they migrated first and then evolved. That seems a little far fetched to me that these would have

anatomically evolved so similarly. Anatomically similar enough in fact to be able to have viable

offspring. You think that if they had evolved separately that there would have been more of a

difference. For this reason, I personally choose the Replacement Model.

 Work Cited

Alan R. Rogers , "How Much Can Fossils Tell Us about Regional Continuity?," Current
Anthropology 36, no. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1995): 674-676.

Stringer, C B; Andrews, P. Science; Washington 239.4845 (Mar 11, 1988): 1263.

Stringer, Christopher and Gamble, Clive (1993) In search of the neanderthals: solving the puzzle
of human origins, London, GB, Thames and Hudson