Search

In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Human Evolution, we re-evaluate the fossil record for early Homo (principally Homo erectus , Homo habilis , and Homo rudolfensis) from early diversification and dispersal in the Early Pleistocene to the ultimate demise of H. erectus in the early Middle Pleistocene. The mid-1990s marked an important historical turning point in our understanding of early Homo with the redating of key H. erectus localities, the discovery of small H. erectus in Asia, and the recovery of an even earlier presence of early Homo in Africa. As such, we compare our understanding of early Homo before and after this time and discuss how the order of fossil discovery and a focus on anchor specimens has shaped, and in many ways biased, our interpretations of early Homo species and the fossils allocated to them. Fragmentary specimens may counter conventional wisdom but are often overlooked in broad narratives. We recognize at least three different cranial and two or three pelvic morphotypes of early Homo. Just one postcranial morph aligns with any certainty to a cranial species, highlighting the importance of explicitly identifying how we link specimens together and to species; we offer two ways of visualizing these connections. Chronologically and morphologically H. erectus is a member of early Homo , not a temporally more recent species necessarily evolved from either H. habilis or H. rudolfensis. Nonetheless, an ancestral–descendant notion of their evolution influences expectations around the anatomy of missing elements, especially the foot. Weak support for long-held notions of postcranial modernity in H. erectus raises the possibility of alternative drivers of dispersal. New observations suggest that the dearth of faces in later H. erectus may mask taxonomic diversity in Asia and suggest various later mid-Pleistocene populations could derive from either Asia or Africa. Future advances will rest on the development of nuanced ways to affiliate fossils, greater transparency of implicit assumptions, and attention to detailed life history information for comparative collections; all critical pursuits for future research given the great potential they have to enrich our evolutionary reconstructions for the next fifty years and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The announcement of a new species, Homo floresiensis, a primitive hominin that survived until relatively recent times is an enormous challenge to paradigms of human evolution. Until this announcement, the dominant paradigm stipulated that: 1) only more derived hominins had emerged from Africa, and 2) H. sapiens was the only hominin since the demise of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. Resistance to H. floresiensis has been intense, and debate centers on two sets of competing hypotheses: 1) that it is a primitive hominin, and 2) that it is a modern human, either a pygmoid form or a pathological individual. Despite a range of analytical techniques having been applied to the question, no resolution has been reached. Here, we use cladistic analysis, a tool that has not, until now, been applied to the problem, to establish the phylogenetic position of the species. Our results produce two equally parsimonious phylogenetic trees. The first suggests that H. floresiensis is an early hominin that emerged after Homo rudolfensis (1.86Ma) but before H. habilis (1.66Ma, or after 1.9Ma if the earlier chronology for H. habilis is retained). The second tree indicates H. floresiensis branched after Homo habilis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The past decade has seen the Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil hominin record enriched by the addition of at least ten new taxa, including the Early Pleistocene, small-brained hominins from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the diminutive Late Pleistocene Homo floresiensis from Flores, Indonesia. At the same time, Asia's earliest hominin presence has been extended up to 1.8 Myr ago, hundreds of thousands of years earlier than previously envisaged. Nevertheless, the preferred explanation for the first appearance of hominins outside Africa has remained virtually unchanged. We show here that it is time to develop alternatives to one of palaeoanthropology's most basic paradigms: ‘Out of Africa 1’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]