Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth

Seringer covers everything except the probability that the "bottleneck" was the common cold.Was the "Bottleneck" the Common Cold?There is an easy way to make the "out-of-Africa" and "multiregional" claims fit together. Suppose that early homo sapiens (the earliest forms of cro magnon, including so-called Neanderthal) developed in Africa and spread fairly broadly across Europe and Asia. suppose then that a mutation developed in a small family in Africa that made those in that family resistant to a particular virus, which virus had not yet surfaced. They were resistant but not immune. They could survive the virus but continued to carry it. Then suppose the virus occurred. The resistant ones "had colds" and got over them. The non-resistant died or were so debilitated that they could not bear and raise offspring, which offspring, if they did occur would die from "the cold." This small group, otherwise not distinguishable from the non-resistant group, flourished. As they traveled or migrated they carried a deadly virus with them that wiped out any homo sapiens they met.With this scenario, we can explain the broad distribution of homo (sapiens or not, Cro Magnon or not) before the dating of "Eve." And we can still trace all humans back to the singular mother.One-Paragraph Summary: Disease may have been the factor thatdecimated all homonids but a small disease-resistant population thatdeveloped in Africa 100,000 - 200,000 years ago.Archeologists who discuss the fairly sudden and very sweepingreplacement of Neanderthals by Cro Magnons throughout Europe(and perhaps rather quickly the whole world) are presently splitbetween those who argue that Homo Sapiens are a melding of two ormore races of the same species (including Neanderthals and CroMagnons, also possibly Java Men) and those who argue that HomoSapiens came out of Africa as a single species that overwhelmed therest of the Hominids around the world, having perhaps developed from mitochonrial “Eve” as recently as 200,000 years ago. “Out of Africa” experts describe the single species replacement in terms of Cro Magnon superiority, concentrating most frequently on intellectual superiority. They have DNA evidence on their side They tend to emphasize (exaggerate?) anatomical differences between Neanderthals and Cro Magnons in order to argue that Neanderthals were a separate species, an evolutionary dead end. The “melding” experts cite archeological evidence such as the variety of skull shapes and sizes, the early development of stone tools by Neanderthals, evidence of arts and crafts, and Ngandong fossils to bolster their case.What I have not seen is discussion of the possible role of disease in the Cro Magnon takeover. My commentary presents an hypothesis that disease was the factor that decimated all homonids but a small disease-resistant population. We are all descendents of this small population.CommentaryArcheologists who discuss the fairly sudden and very sweepingreplacement of Neanderthals by Cro Magnons throughout Europe (and perhaps rather quickly the whole world) are presently split between those who argue that Homo Sapiens are a melding of two or more races of the same species (including Neanderthals and Cro Magnons, also possibly Java Men) and those who argue that Homo Sapiens came out of Africa as a single species that overwhelmed the rest of the Hominids around the world, having perhaps developed from mitochonrial “Eve” as recently as 200,000 years ago. “Out of Africa” experts describe the single species replacement in terms of Cro Magnon superiority, concentrating most frequently on intellectual superiority. One can find conjecture about superior language use, better tool making ability, even greater artistic sense. They have DNA evidence on their side and develop conjectures about language superiority, sense of family and village cooperation, etc., to bolster their argument. They tend to emphasize (exaggerate?) anatomical differences between Neanderthals and Cro Magnons in order to argue that Neanderthals were a separate species, an evolutionary dead end. The “melding” camp cites archeological evidence such as the variety of skull shapes and sizes, the early development of stone tools by Neanderthals, evidence of arts and crafts, Ngandong fossils to bolster their case.What I have not seen is discussion of the possible role of disease in the Cro Magnon takeover. We all know that smallpox and othercommunicable diseases wiped out tribes of American Indians asEuropeans made first contact with them. Couldn’t disease have played an important or the only role in Cro Magnon success? Christopher Stringer, African Exodus, (p. 156 f.) asks “But if there were primitive humans in Africa 100,000 years ago, why did they take so long to reach Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas? . . . . Where were our ancestors lurking and what were they doing? Puzzling. There are few good answers to these questions.” He continues from there to specualte about “population fluctuations. . . . These events -- called bottlenecks -- would have occurred when numbers crashed because of drought, volcanic eruptions, or other natural calamities. People perished, slicing their genetic individuality from posterity. “Just consider our mitochondrial DNA’s remarkable uniformity, a certain sign of a recent bottleneck.”Lewin seems to dismiss bottleneck as a factor without giving it muchconsideration. Apparently, all he means by this is that he knows of no catastrophe like a volcanic eruption or meteor strike that could cause a sudden population decline. However, I believe that Stringer’s analysis is correct as far as it goes; unfortunately, it does not consider disease as the bottleneck event.I propose the following as hypothetical steps: 1. A small group of African individuals developed a mutationalresistance to viruses 200,000 years ago. At that time, there were noseriously debilitating viruses plaguing humankind, but the viruses thatexisted were carried by humans and other primates. In other words, the mutational ability to resist viruses was not made in a vacuum; the response occurred in reaction to existing, weak, but not debilitating, viruses. [Apparently neutralist theory would suggest that mutations could have arisen without a context. Mutations occur because they occur, not because environmental forces give rise to them.] 2. This group of resistant individuals grew over the next 100,000 years to a group of 1,000 to 10,000 fairly closely related individuals populating one or more villages and sharing these villages with others who were in all ways similar except for this mutation. 3. Then one of the viruses that we associate with the common cold emerged from quiessence. Except for our 1000 - 10,000 resistant individuals, the rest of the population suffered from colds that did not let up or go away. Rather quickly they died. Offspring they bore died even more quickly. 4. The 1,000 - 10,000 resistant individuals had colds and carried the cold viruses, but had developed resistance. In these individuals, viral infection triggered the immune response by the activation of white cells which acted as killer cells. The resistant individuals recovered from the colds but as a group were never entirely free of the virus. 5. Any time these resistant individuals came in contact with others, they tended to infect them. Their contact left non-resistant others forever suffering from cold symptoms. The others soon died. If they propogated before they died, their offspring, born with colds, did not survive the first weeks of life. 6. The resistant individuals found themselves in an empty world. They thrived and propogated because they had little competition. When their villages again filled up, they moved out from their home valley, and everywhere they went, they found populations either already decimated or very soon decimated after contact with the resistant ones (and the virus they carried). 7. These people were probably much like their neighbors across central Africa. They were no more nor less strong, fast, smart, verbal. Their only special trait was their ability to recover from the common cold. But as they grew in number, they found expansion to new areas to be easy. Wherever they went they found vacant villages or villages that soon became vacant. 8. Around 100,000 - 60,000 BP some Africans moved out of Africa and into the Middle East. These were non-resistant and uninfected Africans. In the Middle East they found themselves living near Neanderthal strangers who had moved south and east to escape the rigors of the penultimate Ice Age. The non-resistant Africans had little contact with these Neanderthals, but when they inevitably did have contact, they interbred somewhat successfully. They were of the same species, though genetically separatedfor over 200,000 years and different largely because of environmentalfactors. 9. The non-resistant Africans moved east, carrying with them some Neanderthal genetic material. As they drifted east, they came in contact with other early humans, also different because of separation for at least as long, but also of the same species. There may even have been some homo erectus peoples who were not necessarily (in fact probably not) of the same species. 10. Even as this eastern migration was taking place, membersof the Cold-resistant, infected African population were moving into the south Mediteranean and the Middle East. As they moved, the resident populations died off, leaving them with little competition. 11. The resistant race also took over all of Africa. 12. The resident populations died off regardless of whether they were Neanderthal, African or Asian. 13. By 30,000 BP this new, thriving cold-resistant populationhad replaced other populations throughout Africa, Europe and Asia.The last group of Neanderthals had survived to 30,000 BP because they lived an isolated existence in remote French or Spanish locations , where for generations they lived without contact with the resistant Africans. 14. Subsequently, the cold-resistant population populatedAustralia, the Pacific islands, the Americas. They may well have arrived in the Americas after an earlier migration by non-resistant homonids, but when they came in contact with these peoples, the non-resistant died off quickly. 15. This population, having arisen (or descended) from a verysmall number of individuals, carried the unique traits of that group ofindividuals. They had anatomical features that were different fromNeanderthals. These differences made them perhaps more articulate, perhaps quicker, even more graceful, perhaps, but not necessarily smarter. Whatever their qualitites, they are us. Whether we trace our origins to Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, America, it makes no difference. We have the same ancestors and a much tighter genetic bond than individuals of most species have. Genetically, we have hardly changed over this span of time.Cautions: any of the following might be true without disqualifying my basic argument: a) The disease was not the common cold but some other disease. The common cold is the best candidate because it is one we have a resistance to but not an immunity to. (We develop temporary immunities to colds that infect us, but there are around 200 cold viruses, more than any of us are likely to confront in our lifetimes.) b) Neanderthals were a separate species, genetically incapableof breeding with Africans but still susceptible to a disease the Africans carried but were resistant to. c) In spite of their large brains, Neanderthals were not very smart and/or did not have adequate language skills. d) The lighter skeletons of Africans were (or were not) genetically connected to the mutations that made them resistant to colds (or other disease). e) The different skull shapes were (or were not) geneticallyconnected to their resistance to colds (or other disease).I believe this hypothesis unifies the findings of most Archeologists and leads to a consistent theory of human development. I would be interested in suggestions of how to test it or explanations of why it is faulty.Phil Coleman

This is a book worth the effort, and you will get out of it what you put into it.AUTHORAs a noted researcher and theorist, Chris Stringer is a leading anthropologist – in more ways than one. When he got his PhD in the early 1970s paleo-anthropology was an amazingly unsophisticated and immature science. He helped develop the field by being among the first: to focus on Modern Human Origins (as part of his thesis), to bring database analysis to Anthropology – (in a post doctorate he surveyed Neanderthal and Modern Human fossils in Europe museums) and used sophisticated statistical analysis to analyze it to discover reveal information “buried” there. He showed they are not directly evolved from each other. Most notably, he was a first and leading proponent of “Recently Out of Africa" theory (ROA) for Modern Human origins. Here he is about as close to the horse’s mouth as you are likely to get.LEVEL - NOT AN INTRODUCTORY BOOKThis is definitely not an introductory book. If you have read an introductory book (like Carl Zimmer’s “Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins”) you will have the most essential background you will need to be able to follow through it (as well as get additional explanations and illustrations missing in this book). A more solid background would greatly benefit and enrich your reading of this book. (This would be a good supplemental book to be read by the end of a Physical Anthropology introductory course because it provides many places of deeper insight.)FOCUS: NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF PALEO-ANTHROPOLOGYThe book does not cover all of hominid evolution. It’s principally concerned with 4 species: especially Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals and goes briefly into their common ancestors. (Homo erectus and Heidelbergensis). Discussions of fossils focus on skeletal features that suggest capabilities and behavior. For instance what were the factors that led to our dominance over Neanderthals and their eventual extinction? (I counted over 50 possible reasons). If you are interested in Modern Human origins, the Neanderthals and the interaction between them, this is a must read.• A few other species are mentioned, almost in passing. A little more text is given to very recent finds of species that have had an impact on our understanding of recent origins for man. But this is not a survey text.• It does cover the historical development of understanding in the field related to these species. Chris adds color by discussing his own personal involvement, development and contributions in Human Origins and Neanderthals.• A fourth of the book discusses “Modern Behaviors” (such as innovation, complex tools and use of new materials, long distant transport, clothing and shelter, complex food gathering and processing, symbolic thinking, language, art and ornamentation, cultural aspect -music, rituals and religion) Some of this can be inferred fossil and artifact evidence. But these areas involved lots of speculation, which is not always apparent as it is often hidden in referencing other authors. – This make it appear these were established by scientific evidence but in fact it is just speculation by others. Still speculation adds interest. And it is one step in how science advances -a Hypotheses is a fancy name for conjecture. It is common to the field, begining with Darwin –(Darwin proposed his theory before there was very little corroborating evidence. He mostly speculated from living animals.).However, the field is maturing and evolving toward harder evidence and analyses. So the book does get more technical in some areas. He discusses recent advances in dating technology, methods of analysis and genetics – all of which- have had recent major impacts in anthropology and our understanding of human origins. Some reviewers complained they found these sections too detailed. As I said, this is not an introductory book. If that’s what you are looking for, look elsewhere. To me, Stringer’s discussions of these recent technical advances and fossil finds – and the effect these have had on theories of origins and evolution are one of the strong points of the book.• This is a very good book to get an overview of recent advances in those areas. (Although 5 years old at my review – there are few other books more recent). This overview is another of the books strong points.RATING THE BOOK – THE FIRST HARD THING TO DO• I gave the book four stars mainly because of its readability. Usually I rate a book later in a review, after giving some background. But there are a lot of negatives following and I thought I might discourage you. So let me say first, if do you have the background, or after getting it, you are likely to appreciate this book. Chris, a foremost expert, has a lot to say and he says it in a stimulating way. His is current and there is valuable information to be pulled out. It is worth the money and effort if you are ready for it.READABILITY - LITERARY QUALITY AND ORGANIZATION - THE SECOND HARD FACTOR• This book was intended for a lay public reader. It avoids scientific jargon, footnotes and other academic features. Chris’s writing style is friendly and conversational and or the most part easily understood. He also gives a dry subject sufficient color to keep it pleasant and engaging. I felt like I was involved in informal conversations with the author, akin to discussions in a bar at the end of the day. As such it has an informal “structure”– it rambles: jumps from subject to subject, raises a point, moves onto something else – sometimes almost unrelated and then in later chapters revisits the points. Thinking of this as a conversation, I found the book more palatable – but still a heavy slog.• The author uses run-on paragraphs and long sentences. The first time I started to read the book, I set it aside realizing this was going to be a long hard read. In short it is disorganized and lacks essential expository qualities. Stinger is a scientist, not a science writer and like others of his trade has a tendency to over-qualify a point. (Chris is extraordinary here too, for a scientist who usually advocate for a point of view, because in this book he tried very hard to present all the various perspectives. A commendable objective quality but one that can also make the subject points less clear.)• These qualities are behind the bad comments of some other reviewers. It is not “a terribly written book”, in fact Chris is a good and interesting wordsmith. – But it is a poorly organized book in places verging on in-coherency. So I had to work hard on this book. I felt like at times I was trudging through a muddy literary marsh, and it was easy to get lost. This is definitely not your casual summer read. I have read it twice. Unfortunately I have concluded that if I am going to gleam all its goodies is going to require a third reading.• Another reviewer thought it was rushed into print because it wasn’t properly edited. More obviously it is a cheaply produced book. Besides lack of editorial review, it’s printed on cheap paper that affects the illustrations quality. (And speaking of illustrations it needs a lot more that support the text, those that are present need to be better located to the applicable text and additional discussion about what is shown is often needed.)• I speculated he was using the book to work out recent changes for himself, and he intended it as an informal conversation between himself and relatively well informed lay persons about the most recent findings and his opinions about Modern Human origins and the extinction of Neanderthals. The book is insightful and stimulating, just hard to absorb.• This book is also informationally dense. On subjects it covers, it is thorough – even if the material is scattered around. This quality leads some reviewers to complain that it had too much detail and lead them to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Other reasons to read it more than once.CONTENTI dislike reviews that give away the informational content of a book. For me this takes away from the new reader’s experience of discovery. But there are some things I feel I should point out. Because Stringer was a strong proponent of the Recent Out of Africa model, the book is very interesting in revealing how he and the theory has evolved (It’s the reason I wanted to read it). That discussion is scattered about, but keep a mental eye out for it; especially his discussion of Homo sapien evolution in Africa which is an update/modification of his original ROA position. As another reviewer has said: “Stringer's updated perspective on "out of Africa" suggests a new wave of discoveries to come.” – including a filling in of the migrations and interactions between populations. Genetics is going to lead the way and become increasingly informative.• Another strong point is his discussion of the relative evolutionary strengths and weaknesses of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. It is well summarized – almost a condensed book in itself – but again scattered about. I wrote a list as I came across them, along with the page number for later back referencing. (Along this line, the index is better than most, and I often checked it as a way to overcome the scatter.)• Finally I found his comments at the end of the book about future evolution of humankind interesting.I repeat it’s worth the effort, and you will get out of it what you put into it. Enjoy

Los avances en este campo son vertiginosos gracias a la genética, mantenerse al día es complicado pero este es buen punto de partida

ホモサピエンスが生き延びてきた要因を実際の化石や遺跡を調査した結果として考察していて説得力がある。英語も読みやすい。

Lone Survivors sums up the most recent knowledge about human evolution, written in an easy way for the reader but with the authority of a scientist involved in many of the discoveries.Recommended for all those interested in human evolution.

This is a classic 4.5 star book. It is a documentation of the evidence that we have for human origins, focusing primarily on the Homo line (versus older ancestors). The author is in a good position to guide the reader through this, having been (and still is) an active researcher in the origins of humans. As a paleoanthropologist/archaeologist, the author describes both the history of the finds as well as the finds themselves. What starts out as a confused picture becomes slightly clearer as the author builds support for a theory he helped champion- Recent Out of Africa (ROA). ROA emerged from a highly charged field full of debate as the most likely model towards the end of the 90s, early 2000s. However, the picture is recently slightly muddier, with evidence towards the other side of the spectrum that is multiple origins. Briefly, there seems to be some mixing of non-sapiens autosomal DNA, something that was not visible in the mDNA or Y DNA studies done earlier. Fascinating stuff. This is where the book is strongest, illustrating the evidence, its origins, the strength of that evidence, and the possible interpretations of that evidence. Stringer seems to be fairly even-handed in his treatment of various theories, although he clearly has a bias towards his own (that is, in fairness, well-supported by data).Where the book falls a little flatter is when it tries to extrapolate behavior and causal effects. Clearly, there is much to be learned here. As Stringer says, we are pretty good at knowing the where and when of human evolution (with some important gaps), but the why is still pretty much up in the air. This shouldn't be surprising given the size of the questions (e.g., why did Neanderthals go extinct vs. us) and the limited amount of data to answer them (at best, only a few dozen fossil specimens). The author talked a lot about religion and evolution, which I found surprising given how much of a stretch that is. I think Stringer has a strong sympathy for recent group selection arguments regarding human evolution, but I find those not only controversial, but out of place in a book that clearly lacks that sort of evidence. Because almost all the evidence is ambiguous regarding behavior. For example, are cut marks on human bone due to cannibalism, ritual markings, inter-group/species conflict, or some other behavior? We just don't know at this time. So a large chunk of this book (roughly two chapters) is highly speculative. Some of it I agree with (e.g., importance of kin, care, and male coalitions) others I don't really (e.g., discounting Neanderthals as potential killers in one specimen because the injury came from a thrown spear- who says you can't throw a heavy spear? Just not as far as a light one).All in all, the pros outweigh the cons for this book. The writing sometimes bogs down in details of techniques or squabbles within the field, but the overall style and message of the book is compelling enough to get through that. The amount of evidence that continues to pour in, particularly genetic evidence, really sheds a lot of light on human origins. And Stringer is a more than capable guide through this impressive, yet wanting, yet growing, body of evidence. So I recommend this book strongly, as it's a fascinating look at really fascinating questions I think we can all relate to- who are we, where did we come from, and why?

Outstanding book on our species Homo sapiens. This book was written by a true expert in this field and while a bit dense in the beginning, it read like a novel for me throughout. The author describes many of the different theories that have circulated overtime as to what our origins are and then he gives you his own thinking backed up by evidence and his many years of thinking and studying in this field. This is truly one of the best books I have read about evolution and Homo sapiens and even though I am not a scientist or research, I understood and enjoyed this book enormously.