All,
I am certainly looking forward to reading the paper and, needless to say, a response. As a matter of fact, it would be very nice if the Forum were to be presented with a preview of what the latter might be.
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Click
HERE for access to the actual paper.
I've been able to obtain a copy just now, through access. The conclusion is similar to the abstract:
"In the present article we have highlighted what we
consider to be some major shortcomings of two recent
studies that have claimed to have disproved the Out of
Africa hypothesis for modern human origins (Hawks et al.,
2000; Wolpoff et al., 2001). These shortcomings can be
summarized as follows. One, the prediction on which the
studies focussed is not relevant to many versions of the
Out of Africa hypothesis. Two, the key specimens employed
in the studies are problematic in terms of morphological
representativeness. Three, many relevant characters
are ignored, and many of those that are examined are
of questionable phylogenetic utility. Four, little confidence
can be placed in the character state assignments used in
the studies. Five, the main method used in the studies is
inappropriate because, when applied to comparable data
sets, it yields phylogenetic relationships that are most
likely incorrect. In view of the foregoing, we aver that
Hawks et al.’s (2000) and Wolpoff et al.’s (2001) claim to
have disproved the Out of Africa hypothesis cannot be
sustained."
Essentially this paper is a limited response to claims made in two specific papers. It adds to the merry-go-round which is OOA vs Multiregionalism.
