Search

Despite broad agreement that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, considerable uncertainty surrounds specific models of divergence and migration across the continent 1 . Progress is hampered by a shortage of fossil and genomic data, as well as variability in previous estimates of divergence times 1 . Here we seek to discriminate among such models by considering linkage disequilibrium and diversity-based statistics, optimized for rapid, complex demographic inference 2 . We infer detailed demographic models for populations across Africa, including eastern and western representatives, and newly sequenced whole genomes from 44 Nama (Khoe-San) individuals from southern Africa. We infer a reticulated African population history in which present-day population structure dates back to Marine Isotope Stage 5. The earliest population divergence among contemporary populations occurred 120,000 to 135,000 years ago and was preceded by links between two or more weakly differentiated ancestral Homo populations connected by gene flow over hundreds of thousands of years. Such weakly structured stem models explain patterns of polymorphism that had previously been attributed to contributions from archaic hominins in Africa 2-7 . In contrast to models with archaic introgression, we predict that fossil remains from coexisting ancestral populations should be genetically and morphologically similar, and that only an inferred 1-4% of genetic differentiation among contemporary human populations can be attributed to genetic drift between stem populations. We show that model misspecification explains the variation in previous estimates of divergence times, and argue that studying a range of models is key to making robust inferences about deep history., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Accumulating genomic, fossil and archaeological data from Africa have led to a renewed interest in models of modern human origins. However, such discussions are often discipline-specific, with limited integration of evidence across the different fields. Further, geneticists typically require explicit specification of parameters to test competing demographic models, but these have been poorly outlined for some scenarios. Here, we describe four possible models for the origins of Homo sapiens in Africa based on published literature from paleoanthropology and human genetics. We briefly outline expectations for data patterns under each model, with a special focus on genetic data. Additionally, we present schematics for each model, doing our best to qualitatively describe demographic histories for which genetic parameters can be specifically attached. Finally, it is our hope that this perspective provides context for discussions of human origins in other manuscripts presented in this special issue., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Scenarios for modern human origins are often predicated on the assumption that modern humans arose 200,000-100,000 years ago in Africa. This assumption implies that something 'special' happened at this point in time in Africa, such as the speciation that produced Homo sapiens, a severe bottleneck in human population size, or a combination of the two. The common thread is that after the divergence of the modern human and Neandertal evolutionary lineages ∼400,000 years ago, there was another discrete event near in time to the Middle-Late Pleistocene boundary that produced modern humans. Alternatively, modern human origins could have been a lengthy process that lasted from the divergence of the modern human and Neandertal evolutionary lineages to the expansion of modern humans out of Africa, and nothing out of the ordinary happened 200,000-100,000 years ago in Africa. Three pieces of biological (fossil morphology and DNA sequences) evidence are typically cited in support of discrete event models. First, living human mitochondrial DNA haplotypes coalesce ∼200,000 years ago. Second, fossil specimens that are usually classified as 'anatomically modern' seem to appear shortly afterward in the African fossil record. Third, it is argued that these anatomically modern fossils are morphologically quite different from the fossils that preceded them. Here I use theory from population and quantitative genetics to show that lengthy process models are also consistent with current biological evidence. That this class of models is a viable option has implications for how modern human origins is conceptualized., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A procedure is outlined for distinguishing among competing hypotheses for fossil morphology and then used to evaluate current views on the meaning of Neandertal skeletal morphology. Three explanations have dominated debates about the meaning of Neandertal cranial features: climatic adaptation, anterior dental loading, and genetic drift. Neither climatic adaptation nor anterior dental loading are well supported, but genetic drift is consistent with the available evidence. Climatic adaptation and activity patterns are the most discussed explanations for Neandertal postcranial features. Robust empirical relationships between climate and body form in extant humans and other endotherms currently make climatic adaptation the most plausible explanation for the wide bodies and relatively short limbs of Neandertals, and many additional postcranial features are likely secondary consequences of these overall skeletal proportions. Activity patterns may explain certain Neandertal postcranial features, but unlike the situation for climate, relationships in extant humans between morphology and activities are typically not well established. For both the cranium and the postcranium, changes in diet or activity patterns may underlie why Neandertals and Pleistocene modern humans tend to be more robust than Holocene humans.

Evolutionary investigations of human crania typically take a limited view of cranial diversity as they discount the possibility that human cranial variation could simply be due to the effects of random genetic drift, gene flow and mutation in favor of natural selection and developmental changes. Natural selection alone cannot explain similarities between patterns of cranial and molecular diversity observed in humans. It appears that the amount of phenotypic variance in the human cranium decreases at the population level as a function of distance from Sub-Saharan Africa much in the same way as observed for human molecular data., (2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc)