Race and Human Evolution Hardcover – January 15, 1997

The two main theories are that 1) all those skulls found in Asia, Europe & Africa represent various races that have come & gone; and are not separate species (homo this & homo that). And that there was one homoerectus exit from Africa with evolution happening everywhere with migration & interbreeding resulting in modern humans. This book was written before any DNA was found in Neanderthals which would seem to support his views.

I found the book extremly interesting and insightful. It is of interest that Wolpoff feels that anthropologists who use fossils which are categorized as Neandertal, might be a bit narrow, xenophobic, in their ideals. They use the European white as the standard. High eyebrow ridges are characteristics of some in the human family, whose skulls today might just as well be Neandertal.

Another anthropology college textbook described Viking skeletons as being almost identical to Neandertals. The publication, The Origin of Life, quotes Wolpoff as writing, "Neandertals may have been a true human race," from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, "How Neandertals Inform Human Variation. 2009, p.91

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Like many people, I suppose, I am fascinated by the story of Human origins, the spread of people across the globe, the rise and fall of social cultures -- essentially, "our story." So I was in Monterey, California, looking in a very fine used book store for a work on paleoanthropology when I happened to spot "Race and Human Evolution" on a shelf. It was a good find. The book is just crammed with fascinating reading.

First, Wolpoff and Caspari (they are married to each other, despite the difference in surname) reviewed the development of theories of Human evolution from its inception to the time the book was written (published in 1997). Emphasis is placed on how a Eurocentric attitude on the part of many early anthropologists and biologists influenced the interpretations of the Human fossils that were beginning to turn up, and the theories on Human evolution which were proposed by them (the familiar "Human family tree" ideas). They examine these early developments in the context of the racism which was then quite prevalent among these early scholars, and quite clearly demonstrate how those attitudes influenced early work in the area. The review of the development of paleoanthropology and its leading proponents alone makes this text well worth reading.

Wolpoff and Caspari represent a school of paleoanthropology generally termed "multiregionalist." This school posits that, although the Human family first arose in Africa and dispersed across the globe from there, the evolutionary development of modern Humans did not take place exclusively on that continent. Rather, as groups of people migrated to more remote and isolated parts of the world, they experienced evolutionary adaptations, mutations, or "drift" in isolation from other groups of Humans, which was ultimately passed back down the chain as these groups came into contact with others. All one has to do is consider the quite common Human activities of hunting, trade, or conquest to understand how this might happen. This ebb and flow of our genetic make-up has resulted is what are loosely referred to as "modern Humans," essentially unchanged in all major respects for the last 40,000 years or so. Racial differences are superficial, and mostly seen as adaptations to varying climates and environmental conditions. (Apologies to all if I did not get this quite right.)

The other main school on the topic is generally referred to as the common origin, or "Recent African Origin" theory, which asserts that all modern Humans are the descendants of modern Humans who developed in Africa, and spread across the globe from there, "replacing" whatever other types of "Humans" (i.e., Neanderthals) they may have encountered along the way. Sometimes referred to as the "Eve" theory, this school relies a great deal on recent studies of Human DNA, including mitochondrial DNA.

And there you have the academic debate that has raged now for about 30 or 40 years -- "multiregional" development versus "Recent African Origin."

One of the most fascinating things about "Race and Human Evolution" is the shift the reader witnesses from morphology (bone measuring) to DNA analysis in the combined effort to understand our origins. Another very interesting aspect of the work is the discussion, in the concluding chapter, on what exactly we mean by a term like "modern Human" at all.

This is an academic text, and some readers may have some difficulty digesting it all. The book does include a very handy Glossary, and is fully indexed. My advice is to take your time reading it (like I did) and put your emphasis on comprehending just what in the heck they are talking about before moving on to the next chapter.

Although the debate between multiregionalists and Recent African Origin promoters will, no doubt, continue for a good many years (maybe another 40,000), the multiregionalists seem to have scored some undeniable points by the discovery that modern Human DNA contains some strands and components which could only have been inherited from Neanderthals! A recent article in the National Geographic on the announcement from South Africa of the discovery of "Homo naledi" ("Mystery Man," October, 2015) may have leaned a bit toward the "braided stream" model which reflects a multiregionalist model.

Or, in the words of Kinki Friedman: "Homo erectus, got to connect this, bone I discovered yesterday!"

Hope you find this work as fascinating as I did. (For the other side of the debate, see my review of "Lone Survivors" by Chris Stringer.)

This book accurately portrays the skeletal evidence for human origins, in the context of the Multi-regional theory of human evolution. In this respect it's typical Wolpoff & his usual high standard of excellence, "nuff said. What REALLY needs commentary is the major misconception several reviewer have posted. DNA data has NOT "blown skeletal studies out of the water". We now know that mtDNA AND Y-chromosome lineages ARE HIGHLY subject to natural selection, which means that selective processes CAN (& WILL) cause "lineage replacement" in populations. The multi-regional theory REQUIRES geneflow between regional populations, and even miniscule levels of geneflow will introduce "new" lineages, that can replace the earlier lineages in that population. Selective advantages of as little as hundredths of a percent, and "once in a century" geneflow between adjacent populations, WILL result in total worldwide replacement of lineages within a 100,000-150,000 year period WITHOUT significantly affecting the rest of the genepool. So yes, lineage studies DO "show" that we all share common mtDNA & Y-chromosome ancestors within the last 50-250,000 years (depending on which mutation rate estimate is used), but this actually FITS the predictions of the multi-regional model (for that matter, some mutation rate estimates give calculations that ALLOW descent from regional Homo erectus populations). And.... autosomal DNA studies REVEAL ancient regional population structuring for most genes that goes back as much as a million years, but more recent structuring for other genes, which is ALSO exactly what you'd expect under multi-regionalism's "geneflow & spread of advantageous genes" expectation.... but NOT what would be expected of a human population that recently spread out of Africa. So look at ALL the data INCLUDING BOTH the skeletal (which this book is excellent on) AND the DNA side of things (sadly, I've seen no single comprehensive reference on this aspect) before making up your mind. I suggest you read this book AND search pubmed for scientific papers covering the full spectrum of DNA study interpretations.