The origin of living Homo sapiens has once again been the subject of much debate. Genetic data on present human population relationships and data from the Pleistocene fossil hominid record are used to compare two contrasting models for the origin of modern humans. Both genetics and paleontology support a recent African origin for modern humans rather than a long period of multiregional evolution accompanied by gene flow.

This study combines traditional methods of assessing dental developmental status based upon modern human standards with new techniques based upon histological observations in order to reassess the age at death of the Gibraltar child from Devil's Tower. The results indicate that the most likely age of this individual at death was 3 years of age. This result is in agreement with an independent assessment of the age of the temporal bone of this specimen (Tillier, AM [1982] Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 73:125-148) and is concordant with dental developmental ages given for modern humans. Moreover, the fact that this specimen appears at the low end of the age scale for calcification stages in modern humans is also supportive of the findings of Legoux (Legoux, P [1970] Arch. Inst. Paleontol. Hum. Mem. 33:53-87) and Wolpoff (Wolpoff, MH [1979] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 50:67-114) that dental eruption schedules in Neanderthals were also accelerated. If the cranial bones from Devil's Tower are associated with the dental material, as we believe, they indicate a remarkably precocious brain growth in this individual, which is consistent with what is known about general growth and development in Neanderthals.

No abstract

Over the last seventy years, European hominid fossils and associated archaeological remains have been dated by reference to the classical, fourfold glacialhnterglacial subdivision of the Pleistocene. This method seemed relatively straightforward and precise especially as new discoveries were fitted into the schemes, apparently strengthening the correlations and increasing their validity. However, recent studies of deep-sea cores and terrestrial deposits, combined with new developments in relative and absolute dating, have shown that the fourfold schemes are oversimplified. This paper critically reviews some of the dating evidence from sites with hominid remains generally considered as Middle Pleistocene (ca. 700,000-128,000 BP). The hominid and archaeological remains are shown to require independent dating and a cautious approach is adopted towards the use of mammalian faunal remains as chronological indicators. The techniques and results of absolute dating are discussed with reference to present problems and future prospects. At a time of transition from an old framework to new correlations, it is inevitable that some conclusions seem tentative and others rather negative. Nevertheless, the Middle Pleistocene in Europe is more fully understood and better dated than the equivalent period in other parts of the world.Prior to the discoveries made in East Africa since 1959 (Oakley et al., 1977), most palaeoanthropologists concentrated their studies and built their phylogenies around European fossils that consequently assumed great, and perhaps undue significance in studies of human evolution. For many years, these fossils and archaeological remains were dated directly from the alternating series of lithostratigraphic stages supposedly representing cold and warm periods of the fourfold glaciaYinterglacia1 schemes designated in the Alps, northern Europe, or Britain (Table 1)) or indirectly from the biostratigraphic effects of such climatic changes. These schemes seemed to provide a relatively straightforward and secure chronological framework and continued to be used in spite of the recognition of shortcomings, such as gaps in terrestrial sequences

No abstract