Chapter 5 Additional Resources

What Can the Fossil Record Tell Us about Human Origins?

Websites

  • “Becoming Human,” Institute of Human Origins
    http://www.becominghuman.org
    This is an interactive, multimedia website created and maintained by the Institute of Human Origins out of Arizona State University. The site features a plethora of documentaries, games, activities, news, resources, and classroom activities designed to help us understand the process of human evolution.
  • “What does it mean to be human?” Smithsonian National Museum of National History
    http://www.humanorigins.si.edu
    The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History offers a broad introduction to and analysis of human behaviour and human development as evidenced through the fossil record.

Videos

NOVA “Documentary – Becoming Human: Ep1 – First Steps” (YouTube 53:15)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zxST1F5Bzc

This first episode reviews evidence from Australopithecus and primate studies to show why hominins split from apes and started being bipedal. Key fossil findings and reconstructions provide a critical investigation of the reasons for our unique adaptation and the impacts it had on our social abilities as well as technological.

NOVA “Documentary – Becoming Human Ep 2 – Birth of Humanity” (YouTube 51:32)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAw0zrnCTbs

Reviews the major evidence that underpins the evolution of Homo erectus and how it contributed to the modern human adaptation. Shows differences in social rearing of young and migration patterns, along with key technological adaptations.

Books and Articles

Anton, Susan C. 2003. “Natural History of Homo Erectus.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 122(S37): 126–170.

Anton’s article is somewhat technical and may be quite challenging, but it is well worth reading. She discusses the physical nature and geographic range of Homo erectus, including regional variations. Relative to earlier and some contemporary hominins, Homo erectus was markedly physically different with a larger body and larger brain that required a higher-quality diet; the latter helped spur the cultural developments that led to our own species.

Berger, Lee R., John Hawks, Darryl J. de Ruiter, Steven E. Churchill, Peter Schmid, Lucas K. Delezene, Tracy L. Kivell, Heather M. Garvin, Scott A. Williams, Jeremy M. DeSilva, Matthew M. Skinner, Charles M. Musiba, Noel Cameron, Trenton W. Holliday, William Harcourt-Smith, Rebecca R. Ackermann, Markus Bastir, Barry Bogin, Debra Bolter, Juliet Brophy, Zachary D. Cofran, Kimberly A. Congdon, Andrew S. Deane, Mana Dembo, Michelle Drapeau, Marina C. Elliott, Elen M. Feuerriegel, Daniel Garcia-Martinez, David J. Green, Alia Gurtov, Joel D. Irish, Ashley Kruger, Myra F. Laird, Damiano Marchi, Marc R. Meyer, Shahed Nalla, Enquye W. Negash, Caley M. Orr, Davorka Radovcic, Lauren Schroeder, Jill E. Scott, Zachary Throckmorton, Matthew W. Tocheri, Caroline VanSickle, Christopher S. Walker, Pianpian Wei, and Bernhard Zipfel. 2015. “Homo naledi, a New Species of the Genus Homo from the Dineldi Chamber, South Africa.” Elife (4).

Berger et al. document fossilized skeletal evidence from the Dineldi chamber in the Rising Star cave system in South Africa to support the identification and naming of a new species of the genus Homo—Homo naledi.

Calvin, William H. 1993. The unitary hypothesis: A common neural circuitry for novel manipulations, language, plan-ahead and throwing? In Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, edited by K. R. Gibson and T. Ingold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In general, the brain works best at new uses for old things, and it has borrowed neural machinery; first the prefrontal cortex is important for planning the sequence of movements. In the process of developing sequencing to allow for better throwing that would have followed chimpanzee and early Australopithecine ability we would then see that machinery being used for language. Calvin discusses a possible scenario where chimps might make the leap from flinging sticks at waterholes; for Homo erectus the hand axe might work like a discuss to take out—replicas always fall point down when thrown. Aiming that at the hindquarters of a mammal would cause it to fall—and we often find many handaxes embedded in mud at fossilized waterholes. The law of large numbers comes in with natures' tendency to duplicate cells endlessly, and being able to focus handedness would double the capacity of Homo erectus to throw more effectively.

Keenleyside, Anne, and Richard Lazenby. 2014. A Human Voyage: Exploring Biological Anthropology. 2nd ed. Toronto: Nelson Education.

Keenleyside and Lazenby provide a definitive and up-to-date overview of hominin evolution in this highly readable and engaging text. 

Marciniak, Stephanie, Jennifer Klunk, Alison Devault, Jacob Enk, and Hendrik N. Poinar. 2015. “Ancient Human Genomics: The Methodology Behind Reconstructing Evolutionary Pathways.” Journal of Human Evolution 79: 21–34.

Marciniak et al., working out of the Anicent DNA Centre at McMaster University, discuss new advances in high-throughput sequencing (HTS) and how this technology has changed the ways scholars approach the study of ancient hominin DNA.

McHenry, Henry M., and Katherine Coffing. 2000. “Australopithecus to Homo: Transformations in Body and Mind.” Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 125–146.

McHenry and Coffing examine the significant changes that occurred between 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago, as the genus Homo emerged. These changes included bigger brains, larger bodies, decreased sexual dimorphism, and changes in limb proportions, among others. The earliest members of the genus Homo saw the most changes in their crania, but continued to resemble Australopithecines below their necks.

Ruff, Christopher B., M. Loring Burgess, Richard A. Ketcham, and John Kappelman. 2016. Limb Bone Structural Proportions and Locomotor Behavior in A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy"). PLOS One: 26.

Continued debate on the functional significance of post-cranial skeleton for locomotor behaviour, but we know that limb bone strength proportions in Homo Erectus are similar to those of modern humans but Homo habilis are more chimpanzee like and Australopithecus afarensis even more so. The authors examine the “Lucy” skeleton (A. afarensis) and compare it to a chimpanzee and modern human skeleton and show that modern humans have stronger femora relative to humeri than chimpanzees, while Homo specimens are slightly stronger humeri focus, and Lucy’s right humerus is 10-15 per cent stronger than left, indicating righthandedness. 

Shea, John J. 2011. “Stone Tool Analysis and Human Origins Research: Some Advice from Uncle Srewtape.” Evolutionary Anthropology 20: 48–53.

Shea notes that intentionally fracturing of stone to make tools with sharp cutting edges represents a unique hominin adaptation. Even in the absence of fossil remains, these bits of chipped stone are sufficient to show when and where hominins once lived. The author argues that archaeological analyses of Paleolithic stone tools are underutilized in analyses of evolutionary changes in hominin behaviour and morphology.

Silcox, M.T. 2015. “A Pragmatic Approach to the Species Problem from a Paleontological Perspective.” Evolutionary Anthropology 23: 24–26.

———. 2013. “Primate Origins.” In A Companion to Paleoanthropology, edited by D. Begun, pp. 339–357. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Canadian anthropology Mary Silcox studies paleontology and primate origins and change over time. In the above publications, she discusses issues surrounding the categorization and naming of new primate species, as well as possible origins for the order of primates.

Wilson, Frank R. 1998. The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language and Human Culture. New York: Pantheon Books.

Detailed discussion of how the evolution of the human hand with a strong opposable thumb and multiple grips, coupled with handedness, underpins many of the neurological developments of humans. The ability to play with things and ideas was a critical step forward and has a role to play in how we shape our education systems for today.

Wynn, Thomas R., Adrianna Hernadez-Agular, Linda Marchant, and William C. McGrew. 2011. “An Ape’s View of the Oldowan: Revisited.” Evolutionary Anthropology 20: 181–197.

In 1989, two of the authors, Wynn and McGrew, compared Oldowan technology—associated with early members of the genus Homo—to what was known then about chimpanzee technology. Since that date, our understanding of Oldowan and chimpanzee technology has expanded considerably. Then and now, they note that Oldowan technology can be accommodated within what we know about chimpanzee behaviour. “Human” traits such as language are not necessary for an Oldowan culture that can be viewed as ape, not human.

Back to top