Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early modern human diversity suggests subdivided population structure and a complex out-of-Africa scenario

Open access
Gunz, Philipp, Bookstein, Fred L., Mitteroecker, Philipp, Stadlmayr, Andrea, Seidler, Horst, Weber, Gerhard W.·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The interpretation of genetic evidence regarding modern human origins depends, among other things, on assessments of the structure and the variation of ancient populations. Because we lack genetic data from the time when the first anatomically modern humans appeared, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, instead we exploit the phenotype of neurocranial geometry to compare the variation in early modern human fossils with that in other groups of fossil Homo and recent modern humans. Variation is assessed as the mean-squared Procrustes distance from the group average shape in a representation based on several hundred neurocranial landmarks and semilandmarks. We find that the early modern group has more shape variation than any other group in our sample, which covers 1.8 million years, and that they are morphologically similar to recent modern humans of diverse geographically dispersed populations but not to archaic groups. Of the currently competing models of modern human origins, some are inconsistent with these findings. Rather than a single out-of-Africa dispersal scenario, we suggest that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa, after which there followed a complex migration pattern. Our conclusions bear implications for the inference of ancient human demography from genetic models and emphasize the importance of focusing research on those early modern humans, in particular, in Africa.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0808160106

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Gunz, P., Bookstein, F. L., Mitteroecker, P., Stadlmayr, A., Seidler, H., & Weber, G. W.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-04-14
Volume
106
Issue
15
Pages
6094-6098
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2151744354
Cited by
227
References
6
FWCI
102.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early modern human diversity suggests subdivided population structure and a complex out-of-Africa scenario. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0808160106
The paper
Gunz, P., Bookstein, F. L., Mitteroecker, P., Stadlmayr, A., Seidler, H., & Weber, G. W. (2009). Early modern human diversity suggests subdivided population structure and a complex out-of-Africa scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808160106

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.