Abstract
The taxonomical interpretation of the fossil record of our own genus Homo is still highly controversial. In spite of obvious major advances concerning the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the fossil specimens there currently remain unbridgeable disagreements concerning the origin, speciation and dispersal of our genus. The polarized positions result foremost from different methodological approaches for species recognition (e.g., Tattersall 1986; Wolpoff and Caspari 1997; Schwartz 2000a; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Jobling et al. 2004; Rothe and Henke 2006). Beside the Multiregional Evolutionary Model (MRE) there are different Recent African Origin Models (RAOMs) with varying numbers of speciation. This contribution discusses the evolution and origin of ‘early’ Homo, the assumed speciation events and the validity and credibility of traditional, newly described or reinterpreted Homo-species and the hypothesized patterns of dispersal. We ask for an explanation of the tremendous evolutionary success as well as the triggers for the incomparable career of Homo. Finally we will try to decipher the speciation process and dispersal patterns of our forerunners and to unravel the traces of our fossil ancestors. Though paleoanthropologists, who seek the doorways to the past, have recently been very successful in developing new sets of keys (Henke and Tattersall 2007), the species recognition within the genus Homo remains a permanent challenge of paleoanthropological research. As the evolutionary process was a single real-historic-genetical event it is not a matter of taste how many species there have been. There is a need for sound taxonomic units strictly based on phylogenetic systematics as a prerequisite for progress in evolutionary biology (Wägele 2000; Wheeler and Meier 2000; Rothe and Henke 2001, 2006; Wiesemüller et al. 2003).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
There are few problems in paleoanthropology that have been more continuously troublesome during the last century than defining the genus Homo because of its fragmentary hominid fossil record, the tendency to over-split hominid taxa and emphasize differences rather than similarities, and the lack of suitable methods to resolve the relative and absolute ages of fossil samples complained Howell (1978). Nearly a quarter of a century later Dunsworth and Walker (2002, p. 432) still bewail: “At the moment we are plagued with more questions than answers concerning the evolution of early Homo”, and Smith’s (2002, p. 456) conclusion in his review on the confusingly complicated patterns of migrations, radiations and continuity in Middle and Late Pleistocene humans is: “While these debates are not likely to end soon, there is clear evidence on several fronts that many participants practiced good science. […] Along with an increasing amount of data pertinent to the patterns of modern human origins, these evolving models are certain to enhance greatly our understanding of the radiations and evolutionary history of our genus Homo.”
Even though the methods of dating paleoanthropological and archaeological processes or events (see Wagner 2007) underwent a rapid progress during the last few decades, it is unrealistic to expect that the boundaries of the genus Homo are currently well defined and that the aspects of speciation and intrageneric relationships are solved. On the one hand there is a great improvement of the time resolution of the process of human evolution, and on the other hand there is to recognize a tremendous increase of the human fossil record by systematic explorations and meticulous excavations of the relevant fossiliferous layers (see Etter 1994; Henke 2005; Henke and Rothe 1994, 1999a; Johanson and Edgar 2007; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000), but in spite of both positive trends we have to notice the paradox consequence that we run the risk in paleoanthropology because of different genus and species concepts and contradictory phylogenetic theories to miss the wood for the trees (Rothe and Henke 2001; Wheeler and Meier 2000; Wägele 2000; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Collard and Wood 2007).
Despite the rapidly increasing amounts of scientific data the controversies on human evolution are currently not minor than at that time when Clark Howell bewailed the over-split of hominid taxa, though the level has changed. While some commonly used junior synonyms like Anthropopithecus Dubois, 1892; Pithecanthropus Dubois, 1892; Protanthropus Haeckel, 1895; Sinanthropus Black, 1927, Cyphanthropus Pykraft, 1928; Meganthropus Weidenreich, 1945; Telanthropus Broom and Robinson, 1949 and Atlanthropus Arambourg, 1954, were dropped out and successively integrated in the genus Homo by a taxonomic revision during the sixties and seventies of the last century (e.g.. Groves and Mazák 1975), the number of Homo-species increased rapidly as well as the number of potential forerunners of the genus Homo (see pedigree in Fig. 3.1).
Due to the many different approaches ranging from evolutionary taxonomy (Simpson 1961; Mayr 1975) to numerical taxonomy or phenetics (Sneath and Sokal 1973) as well as phylogenetic systematics or cladistics (Hennig 1950; Wiley 1978; Ax 1984; Wägele 2000; Wiesemüller et al. 2003), we are actually far from a consensus concerning the taxonomically basic anthropological problem, how many fossil species of our genus have existed in the past and how they were related to one another. Despite the rapidly growing number of hominid fossil specimens, the diversification of disciplines participating in paleoanthropology and an obvious progress in methodology during the second half of the last century (Henke and Tattersall 2007; Hardt and Henke 2007; see Fig. 3.2), it is still highly controversial and open to discussion whether the process of human evolution was smooth or jumpy (see Wolpoff 1996–1997, 1999; Wolpoff and Caspari 1997; Henke and Rothe 1999a, b, 2001, 2005; Campbell and Loy 2000; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000; Tattersall 2007; Henke 2003a, b; Rothe and Henke 2006). While some scientists suggest that new hominin species originated through a slow accumulation of small-scale changes in existing lineages, i.e. a phyletic process called gradualism or phyletic transformation, others support a model which has been described as punctuated equilibrium (Gould and Eldredge 1977). The latter currently more widely accepted model likens the evolution of hominins to a series of starts and stops, i.e. periods of genetic and phenotypic stasis are periodically interrupted by rapid speciation events, which are the starts of new species (see Campbell and Loy 2000; Jobling et al. 2004; Futuyama 2007). Even if one chooses to accept that the most appropriate metaphor for the pattern of human evolution appears to be a branching bush, rather than a ladder to be climbed, one question still remains to be answered: How many hominin species were there?
This contribution aims to give an answer by reviewing the current alternative paleoanthropological ideas on the origin and diversification of the genus Homo. The review starts with a brief historical overview of the quests for centres of our generic origin, continues with the discussion on the earliest species of Homo, and asks for an explanation of the tremendous evolutionary success as well as the triggers for the incomparable career of our genus. Finally we will try to decipher the speciation process and dispersal patterns of our forerunners and to unravel the traces of our fossil ancestors.
Early Searches for the ‘Cradle of Mankind’
The Neanderthal man from the Kleine Feldhofer Grotto in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf was found by limestone workers in 1856 and described by the local teacher Johann Carl Fuhlrott (1803–1877). The fossil was the first early human specimen to be recognized as such. Discoveries like that from Engis (excavated in 1829) and another from Gibraltar (found in 1848) were made sooner, but their nature became evident much later. Fuhlrott’s merit was that he had realized the significance of the fossils, which the limestone workers took for animal bones (Schott 1977, 1979; Schmitz and Thissen 2000). Fuhlrott fought, together with the anatomist Herrmann Schaaffhausen (1816–1893), for their acceptance as ancient remains from the diluvial age (Zängl-Kumpf 1990). As the discovery of the fossil bones antedated the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, this specimen has often been apostrophized as first proof for human evolution. (Bowler 1988; Desmond 1997; Corbey and Roebroeks 2001; Henke 2007). In his famous papers on Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature, Darwin’s colleague Thomas Henry Huxley (1863) for the first time gave morphological arguments for our relationship with recent primates and pointed to the scarce fossil record known in his time. In spite of contrary statements by many historians, Huxley said virtually nothing about human origins but concentrated exclusively on demonstrating the physical resemblances of humans and apes. He concluded that humans were still sufficiently unique that they should be kept apart from the great apes, which he relegated to their own taxonomic group. Concerning the Neanderthal man from Germany, Huxley conducted a sophisticated comparison with anatomically modern skulls from Australian Aborigines and other aboriginal relicts, pioneering new ways of orienting and measuring skulls for easier comparison (Desmond 1997). He viewed the Neanderthals as a very “primitive race” of humans, “the most pithecoid of human crania yet discovered” (Huxley 1863, p. 205). The Huxley-biographer Desmond (1997) commented that Huxley was preparing the world for “ancient semihumans”, which means that the idea of our early forerunners was at Darwin’s time woolly and premature.
The Irish zoologist William King proposed in 1864 the species name Homo neanderthalensis, although his arguments for a separate species in the genus Homo were inadequate and imprecise. Since then, opinion has fluctuated as to whether the fossils should be considered as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis or Homo primigenius or as a subspecies of H. sapiens (H. sapiens neanderthalensis). The “fate of the Neanderthals” (Brace 1962, 1964; Trinkaus and Shipman 1993) remained the trickiest controversy in paleoanthropology until now (Spencer 1984; Stringer and Gamble 1993; Tattersall 1995a, b; Krings et al. 1997, 2000; Henke and Rothe 1999a; Wolpoff 1999; Finlayson 2004; Henke 2006a, 2007; Harvati 2003, 2007).
What became very soon apparent in the second half of the penultimate century was the tremendous need for an extension of the fossil report – since that time colloquially termed as “missing links”. Beyond it there was missing an improved comparative methodology to analyze and interpret the human fossils. As recently has been described by Henke (2006, 2007) and Henke and Rothe (2006) neither the Neanderthal fossils from the Feldhofer Grotto nor those from many other European sites had a path-breaking impact on the formation of paleoanthropology as biological science. Furthermore the discovery of the specimens from La Naulette (1866), Šipka (1880), Spy (1886), Taubach (1887) and the pivotal fossils and artefacts from Krapina (1899–1906) did not induce a paradigmatic shift in paleoanthropology though Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger’s excavations had pushed the anthropological research in the right direction of detailed comparisons and hypothesis-testing (Gorjanović-Kramberger 1906; see Henke 2006b). Others asked whether Eugene Dubois’ essential discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus in 1891 coincided with a paradigm shift in paleoanthropology (see Shipman and Storm 2002). The implication which could be derived from the fossils was that erect posture and bipedal walking antedated the process of encephalization, but even this finding was not convincing for the leading paleoanthropologists of that time. That paleoanthropology remained predominantly a highly narrative science in the early twentieth century became evident from the fatal Piltdown forgery (Spencer 1990a, b), named Eoanthropus dawsoni, and the fact that it took more than 40 years until John S. Weiner, Sir Kenneth Oakley, and Sir Wilfrid LeGros Clark jointly exposed the hoax, although we have to mention that there was much scepticism and rumour earlier (see Friederichs 1932; Weinert 1947). Whoever the players were in this black mark in science, they were aware of the attractiveness and fascination of fossils, and they obviously knew about the public appeal and the rare resources that help to decipher our place in nature (see Stringer and Gamble 1993; Foley 2001).
The embarrassing success of the Piltdown forgery unmasked the ethnocentrism and Euro-centrism of the European anthropologists of early twentieth century, in other words, hardly anybody of the protagonists of that time could image that our phylogenetic forerunners originated and lived in another continent than Europe the obvious centre of culture. The interpretation of the Piltdown fossil as a human precursor was partially responsible for the vehement dismissal of the first Australopithecus fossil from South Africa. Raymond Dart’s interpretation of the Taung child as missing link between ape and man yielded a storm of controversy (Woodward 1925; Keith 1931). This is remarkable insofar as Dart’s discovery matched the prophecy of Darwin (1871, p. 202): “It is, therefore, probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee: and, as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probablethat our progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere.”
To the extent that these and other indications for an extra-European “cradle of humankind” were deliberately ignored, the Piltdown case is a telling example of cut and dried opinions (Spencer 1990a, b). Small wonder, that the scientific output of paleoanthropology during the first decades of the last century was far more redolent of stagnation than progress. The evolutionary biology at those times was characterized by Ernst Mayr as “chaotic” (Tattersall 2000a, p. 2). We can notice that even at the beginning of the twentieth century, Darwin’s principles were widely misunderstood by anthropologists, who persisted in orthogenetic biological thinking or insisted on the theoretical split between natural sciences and humanities (see Henke and Rothe 2003, 2005, 2006). Paleoanthropological theory and methodology were nascent, and it took a total change to a population genetical thinking and a modern Synthesis by Theodosius Dobzhan-sky, Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley in the first half of the last century and an integrated primatological approach during the second half, introduced by Sherwood Washburn (1953) in the fifties of the last century, to establish the theoretical frame of an innovative paleoanthropological research (see Foley 1987; Henke and Rothe 1994, 2003, 2006; Henke 2007; Henke and Tattersall 2007).
After the discovery of the Taung child Africa came more and more into the focus of paleoanthropology, firstly with surprising fossils from South Africa [Australopithecus (Plesianthropus) transvaalensis; Paranthropus crassidens; Paranthropus robustus] and secondly from East Africa [Paranthropus (Zinjanthropus) boisei, Paranthropus (Paraustralopithecus) aethiopicus (further newly excavated and described taxa see pedigree Fig. 3.1)]. A paleoanthropological sensation was the discovery of a human fossil from Olduvai (F.L.K.N.N. Site – Bed I) which was classified as Homo habilis by Louis S. B. Leakey et al. (1964). Phillip Tobias (1989a, b, 1991) retrospectively called this fossil a premature discovery after Stent who defines that “… a discovery is premature if its implications cannot be connected by a series of simple logical steps to canonical or generally accepted knowledge” (Stent 1972, p. 84).
Actually there is a highly controversial discussion on the phylogenetical status of H. habilis as the hypodigm of this taxon has been successively enlarged during the last 50 years and exhibits an extremely large variation (Alexeev 1986; Hartwig-Scherer and Martin 1991; Collard and Wood 2007; Susman 2008). The fact that there is no agreement about the classification of the earliest evidence of Homo is on the one hand an indication for a severe theoretical deficit of our taxonomical approaches and on the other hand strong evidence that we are at the roots of our genus. Currently there is nearly no doubt that Africa is the cradle of Homo and that our genus conquered the Old World soon after its emergence. What was the “Rubicon” Homo had crossed to finally reach this incomparable success of our own species – and how many species of this genus went extinct (Foley 1991)? These are essential paleoanthropological questions to be answered.
The Earliest Evidence of Homo
Within the theoretical concept of an adaptive evolutionary change from archaic hominids to human-like ones the traditional expectations concerning the genus Homo are full uprightness, successive reduction of the mastication apparatus as adaptation to changed food processing, improved encephalization, and evidence of cultural abilities. Whether the fossil species attributed to Homo had already developed a human-like society (Rothe and Henke 2006), a language, or art (Haidle 2007; Mithen 1998, 2007) can only be judged with great uncertainty, if at all. For example, allometrical effects may cover the real abilities, i.e., body sizes have to be taken into account to achieve an idea of the relative brain size (Hemmer 2007). Current research on cultural behaviors and underlying cognitive and linguistic competences in early hominins is a highly interdisciplinary enterprise (see Henke and Tattersall 2007), which gives only very rough information concerning the first appearance of the genus Homo.
We are of the opinion that there is a need for sound taxonomic units as a prerequisite for progress in evolutionary biology (Wägele 2000; Wheeler and Meier 2000; Rothe and Henke 2001, 2006; Wiesemüller et al. 2003), and do not agree with those who argue that discussions on species concepts are wasted effort. Though we are convinced that there is little hope that the discrepancies about the theory of speciation and the species concepts (e.g., biological species, chronological species, cladistic species, ecological species, evolutionary species, morphological species, phenetic species, phylogenetic species, reproductive species) will be eliminated in the near future and paleoanthropologists will reach a consensus on hominid systematics, we agree with those who regard taxonomy and systematics beside a thorough background in an increasingly broad spectrum of disciplines (see Fig. 3.2) as an essential prerequisite for phylogenetic discussions. Without an exact knowledge of the population genetical processes, a precise theory of speciation and an inter-subjective definition of taxonomic categories there is no chance to escape the narrative concepts of paleoanthropology and the image of an “Instant Science”, as Kathy Chang labeled a paleoanthropology that knows the answers from the first glance (cited in White 2000).
Excurse
Here we will not step deeper into this discussion, but want to explain our viewpoint in brief. The most common definition of a species is the biospecies (Mayr 1969, 1975), i.e., a group of actually and potentially interbreeding natural populations, which is reproductively isolated from other species. Because this definition is applicable only to contemporaneous living organisms, alternative definitions have been proposed (Simpson 1961; Wiley 1978). Paleoanthropologists very often describe fossil species as morphospecies, based on morphological or anatomical similarity, or refer to temporally successive species in a single lineage, so-called paleospecies or chronospecies. We don’t regard these species concepts as valid approaches. The most accepted definition of a species is given by Wiley (1978, p. 18) as “…a single lineage of ancestral descent populations of organisms which maintains its identity from other such lineages and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate” (see Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Henke 2005; Rothe and Henke 2006). The currently best method of choice to decipher phylogenies is the phylogenetic systematics or cladistics (see Hennig 1950; Wiley 1978; Ax 1984; Wägele 2000; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Rothe and Henke 2006). A reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is strictly based on the observation of synapomorphic traits. However we must be aware, paleoanthropologists are just modelling!
The Potential ‘Candidates’ for the ‘Earliest’ Homo
The discoverers of H. habilis (Leakey et al. 1964) described the species nova as being more advanced than A. africanus and not as humanized as H. erectus. But even 15 years after the species was labelled for the first time, the majority of competent scholars in the field did not accept H. habilis as a valid taxon. The reason was that there was a lack of ‘morphological space’ between A. africanus and H. erectus, as Stringer (1986) supposed in his article on “The Credibility of Homo habilis”, i.e., the new species was strongly criticized in the beginning, for many experts argued that the Olduvai specimens could be classified within existing taxa. Meanwhile, there seems to be worldwide acceptance of the fact that specimens with smaller endocranial capacities need not be excluded from membership in Homo and that the fossils are not a normal variant of either the putative australopithecine ancestor or the putative descent H. erectus. Within the material, attributed to ‘early Homo’ (Wood 1992, 1996a, b), three species can be identified today, one of them resembles Homo erectus and is interpreted as either ‘early African Homo erectus’ or Homo ergaster, and the two other species are Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis (sensu stricto).
Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis (s. str.): Although Tobias (1991) made a strong case for only one species being represented among specimens attributed to H. habilis, other authors see evidence that there may be two species, one named H. rudolfensis, which was proposed in 1986 by the Russian anthropologist Valeri Alexeev for specimen KNM-ER 1470 (Alexeev 1986), and the other H. habilis[s. str.] (see e.g., Tobias 1989a, b; Wood 1992; Henke and Rothe 1994; Stringer 1996, 2001; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000; Collard and Wood 2007; Schrenk et al. 2007; Susman 2008), which are sister taxa within a monophyletic Homo clade. However, this phylogenetic interpretation is only a little more parsimonious than a polyphyletic one, explaining the features typifying each species as parallel developments (see also Bilsborough 1992, p. 132; Kennedy 1999; Rightmire 2007). Anyway, whatever may be the correct taxonomic solution, there are strong arguments against a H. habilis [sensu lato] concept while the hypodigm remains unsure.H. rudolfensis shows, apart from an increased average brain size of c. 750 cc, features of the face and masticatory apparatus that parallel those of Paranthropus, e.g., marked orthognathy, broader midface than upper face, and large palate, but H. habilis s. str. shows a moderate average brain size of 610 cc and progressive features of cranium, face, and jaws.
The postcranium of H. rudolfensis is evidently more derived, like that of later Homo, although the association with the skull fragments is not confirmed. In contrast,H. habilis s. str. shows a very plesiomorphic, australopithecine-like physique. The described combination of australopithecine-like cranio-dental features with a derived postcranium in H. rudolfensis and of progressive cranium and dentition with primitive body proportions in H. habilis s. str. (a highly putative association) allows the conclusion that neither of the two species represents a reliable ancestor of later Homo (see H. ergaster), because every interpretation has to take very unlikely evolutionary changes into account to explain these unusual morphological mosaics.
Fossils representing H. habilis [s. l.] were first described from Olduvai, where they were uncovered from layers that have also yielded australopithecine skeletal material (Bed I and Bed II), but the largest contribution to the hypodigm comes from another site in East Africa, Koobi Fora, on the northeast shore of Lake Turkana. Further remains of the species have been recovered from Members G and H of the Omo Shungura Formation. From the western shore of Lake Turkana, a cranial fragment from the Nachukui Formation has been described, and a fragmentary skull, Stw 53, was recovered from the South African cave of Sterkfontein in Member 5. The attribution of hominin material from Member 4 of Sterkfontein to H. habilis s. l. is uncertain, although material from Swartkrans Member I (Sk 847, Sk 27) was confirmed as belonging to H. habilis s. l. In addition to the fossils from sub-Saharan sites, there are reports on H. habilis s. l. fossils from sites beyond Africa, the Near East and Asia, which have only little reliability and acceptance (Fig. 3.3). The actual hypodigm concentrates especially on East Africa. A mandible from Uraha (U 501, Malawi), which was attributed to H. rudolfensis by Bromage et al. (1995) forms a link to the more northern sample (Schrenk et al. 1993, 2007).
The recognition of H. habilis s. l. and the dating of some specimens from Olduvai to about 2.0 Ma was the first compelling evidence for the existence of Tertiary man in the sense of a species of the genus Homo (Tobias 1989a, b). Due to the improvement of dating methods and the discovery of new remarkable fossils, it is currently accepted that the genus Homo emerged before the end of the Pliocene. Earliest well-flaked stone artefacts, identified as Oldowan-like in character, have been traced back to about 2.5–2.6 Ma (Semaw 2000); however, there is no proof that these implements testify to the presence of a particular hominin species. The definition of H. habilis is, essentially, an anatomical one, although ethological evidence may be added in support (Tobias 1989a, b, 1991). The most recent occurrences of H. habilis are from Olduvai Bed II, dating to about 1.6 Ma. The higher age of H. rudolfensis (2.5–1.8 Ma) in comparison to H. habilis s. str. (2.1–1.6 Ma) cannot be taken as evidence that this species is the better candidate for the direct Homo lineage, because the phylogenetic analysis has to be based on relevant diagnostic features (Table 3.1).
Tobias’ (1991) review of the morphology of H. habilis s. l. lists the following critical morphological features of the first description, which have been strengthened and supplemented by subsequent studies.
The postcranium exhibits a very controversial morphological pattern: on the one hand there are distinct similarities with H. sapiens (e.g., clavicle, broad terminal phalanges, capitate metacarpophalangeal articulations, stout and adduced big toe, well marked foot arches) and on the other hand distinguished differences (e.g., scaphoid, trapezium, trochlea surface of the talus, robust metatarsal III). The partial skeleton OH 62, a H. habilis s. str., which was found by Johanson et al. (1987), has especially caused much discussion (Hartwig-Scherer and Martin 1991), because the estimated length and robustness of the humerus and forearm bones of OH 62 suggest that its proportions are remarkably ape-like, and the predicted weight/stature relationships are also more like that of Panini (Aiello and Dean 1990; Aiello 1996), but the phylogenetic status of ‘Lucy’s child’ remains uncertain.
Although Tobias (1991) gave an extremely detailed description of H. habilis s. l., listing 334 cranial, mandibular, and dental features, the question of what autapomorphic features define H. habilis remained controversial (Stringer 1986; Bilsborough 1992; Wood 1992; Henke and Rothe 1999; Grine 2001; Manzi 2001; Rightmire 2001a, b; Wood and Collard 2001, 2007). The main reason for the uncertainty in the interpretation of the diversity of early Homo is that the fossil hominin remains that are formally or informally allocated to H. habilis or declared to have affinities with this species vary from one author to another; in other words, there are multiple taxon solutions. The claimed heterogeneity of the H. habilis s. l. material from Olduvai (e.g., OH 7, 13, 16, 24), Koobi Fora (e.g., KNM-ER 1470, 1590, 1805, 1813, 3732), Omo (L894-1, Omo 75–14, Omo 222–2744), and Chemeron (KNM-BC1), as well as from Sterkfontein (e.g., Stw 53) caused different approaches to find a better supported classification, but the split into two species is taxonomically ambiguous (Wood 1996a, b; Henke and Rothe 1994, 1999). Cladistics has made little contribution to the search for distinctive features, or autapomorphies, of H. habilis. For example, Chamberlain and Wood (1987) concluded that when H. habilis s. str. and H. rudolfensis are separately included in a cladistic analysis, they are linked as sister taxa within a single clade defined by the feature states of elongated anterior basicranium, higher cranial vault, mesiodistally elongated M1 inf. and M2, and narrow mandibular fossa. Wood and Collard (2001, p. 141) concluded “…that if Homo habilis sensu stricto and Homo rudolfensis are included in Homo that genus fails both the ‘grade’ and the ‘clade’ tests.”
The most complex cladistic analysis of early hominin relationships was conducted by Strait et al. (1997) and Strait and Grine (2004). Several different approaches agreed in indicating that the robust australopithecines form a clade, that A. afarensis is the sister taxon of all hominins, and that the genus Australopithecus, conventionally defined, is paraphyletic. Concerning H. habilis, the relationships of A. africanus and H. habilis were unstable in the sense that their positions varied in trees that were marginally less parsimonious than the favoured one.
The paleoecological scenario that explains the observed phylogenetic pattern states the possibility that bipedalism (and hence, the earliest hominins) evolved in response to changing ecological conditions in Africa during the late Miocene and early Pliocene. Vrba’s (1988) faunal reconstructions indicate that hominin diversity between 2.5 and 1.5 Ma was possibly associated with environmental desiccation. After 2.5 Ma, hominin diversity is represented primarily by two distinct lineages, Paranthropus and Homo, which reacted to such desiccation by following different evolutionary trajectories (i.e., hypermastication vs. hypercephalization) (Strait et al. 1997, p. 56). The morphological changes demonstrate that the masticatory apparatus increased moderately in the early stages of human evolution. Subsequently it increased markedly in Paranthropus and decreased in Homo, a dichotomy that almost certainly represents a divergence in trophic adaptations (Fig. 3.4).
A cladistic analysis conducted by Wood and Collard (1999a , b) showed that neither H. habilis nor H. rudolfensis can be assumed with any degree of reliability to be more closely related to H. sapiens than they are to species allocated to other genera. In a recent contribution Collard and Wood (2007, p. 1575) confirmed their positions, concluding, that “…the available evidence still suggests that the adaptive strategies of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis were different from those operated by H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens.” Their proposal to remove H. habilis and H. rudolfensis from die genus Homo and to assign them to a different genus or pair of genera is not widely-accepted (e.g., Schrenk et al. 2007; Johanson and Edgar 2007; Susman 2008). However, the characterization of the H. habilis s. l. as “mysterious” hypodigm tells its own tale (Tattersall and Schwartz 2000).
Homo erectus (incl. Homo ergaster): At the end of the Basal Pleistocene (c. 1.5 Ma), H. habilis and H. rudolfensis disappeared from the fossil record, followed somewhat later byP. robustus and P. boisei. The exact reason for their extinction is not known, but there are indications from high faunal turnovers that climatic fluctuations may have caused dramatic ecological shifts. At the beginning of the Pleistocene, the first epoch of the Quaternary, which was characterized by a series of glacial and interglacial periods, a new hominin emerged, African Homo erectus sive Homo ergaster. There is a long-standing hypothesis that populations similar to this species were directly ancestral to the earliest members of the living species H. sapiens, whereas hypotheses concerning the link to hominin forerunners changed with the increase in the fossil record and are still under ongoing discussion (see e.g., Rightmire 1990; Henke and Rothe 1995, 1999; Henke 2003a, b, 2005, 2006a; Antón et al. 2007; Tattersall 2007; Hardt and Henke 2007).
The German zoologist Ernst Haeckel first linked humans to apes in a tree-like diagram in “General Morphology” from 1866 and suggested an Asian origin of humankind, based on the hypothesis of a near relationship to hylobatids (Haeckel 1866). The first fossil finds of H. erectus (formerly named Pithecanthropus erectus) were made in 1891 by Eugene Dubois in Central Java. The Dutch army doctor was convinced at that time that he had discovered the presumed ‘missing link’, the transitional form between apes and humans. The conviction that the new human taxon had been an erect bipedal creature resulted in the species name erectus. Because the Java man was the first non-European fossil in paleoanthropology, the discovery led to questioning of the European-centred world view that had so far been supported by the famous Neanderthal fossils. From now on, Asia was hesitantly accepted to be the place of human origin. South-East Asia and the Far East became in the first half of the twentiethcentury the centre of the search for the earliest human fossils, until it became evident that hominins of a H. erectus grade existed in the other continents of the Old World too.
During the last decades it became the favoured phylogenetic hypothesis that H. erectus (or a conspecific taxon namedH. ergaster) originated in Africa from an earlier species of the same genus, H. habilis s. l., forming an intermediate position in the human family tree between the ancient forerunner and ‘archaic’ H. sapiens. H. erectus was – sloppy verbalized – a sandwich-species. This species was said to be the conqueror of the Old World, the first hominin to emigrate out of Africa, successively reaching Asia and Europe. But its evolutionarily intermediate position in the human family tree has been questioned more and more during the last decades (e.g., Howell 1986, 1996; Franzen 1994a; Henke and Rothe 1995; Rightmire 1990; Tattersall 2000a, b, 2007; Schwartz and Tattersall 2002, 2003; Wood and Collard 2001; Henke 2003, Henke 2005, 2006; Henke and Rothe 2006; Antón et al. 2007; Harvati 2007).
Definitions of H. erectus (Dubois 1894) still rest on the Far Eastern fossils from Zhoukoudian and Java (Jacob 1975; Howells 1980; Weidenreich 1943). The species H. erectus came to replace a variety of contemporaneous geographically distinguished genera, including the genera Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Meganthropus, and Atlanthropus. A taxonomic revision by Campbell (1965) deleted older genera and species, lumping these Early and Middle Pleistocene hominin taxa into a single species and separating them only on the subspecies level (H. erectus erectus, H. e. modjokertensis,H. e. pekinensis, H. e. capensis, H. e. leakeyi, H. e. mauritanicus, H. e. heidelbergensis, H. e. ngandongensis, H. e. yuanmouensis, H. e. bilzingslebenensis, H. e. tautavelensis, H. e. georgicus, and others). But this taxonomic approach was obviously not the complete solution to all problems, because the morefossils were found and the more precise the chronological dating became, the more complex the whole situation has become.
At the 100 years anniversary of “Pithecanthropus” Jens Lorenz Franzen (1994b, p. 9) asked among others the following burning questions: “What really is Homo erectus? Is it a good species? Behind which two or even more ‘true’ species may be hidden? – How can Homo erectus be defined, particularly if it is not the result of a speciation event but just a transitional phase of phylogenetic development on the way to modern man? – How can it be separated from ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens? – And then again, is Homo erectus the result of a cladogenetic event or is it the result of continuous transition? – Is it possible to distinguish between an Asian, and African and/or European branch of Homo erectus? – Should the African and European branches, if they really exist, be called species of their own?”
The answers were as diverse as the questions, by no means unexpected in paleoanthropology, especially in regard to the diversity and weaknesses in principal taxonomic approaches. Although some anthropologists regard H. erectus as a grade within a transitional phylogenetic model (e.g., Frayer et al. 1993; Thorne and Wolpoff 1981, 1992; Wolpoff 1980, 1992, 1996–1997, 1999; Wolpoff et al. 1994a, b; Wolpoff and Caspari 1997, 2000), other authorities hold the view that H. erectus originated from a hominin branch of African origin – possibly H. ergaster – in Asia and remained restricted to the Far East (e.g., Tattersall 1995a, b, 2007; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000). Some experts claim that the Asian and African wings of H. erectus exhibit no autapomorphic features and that the early Europeans originated from an African species other than H. erectus, named Homo heidelbergensis (Rightmire 1990, 1998). Is it a phantom, a chimera?
The recent discussion on the question of whether H. erectus was an ancestor of our own species or an evolutionary side branch received new stimuli from exciting fossils from Dmanisi (Georgia). From this site at the gates of Europe, in 1991 a fossil mandible and since 1999 more or less complete skulls and postcranial material of an unexpected high age (most reliable date 1.75 Ma) and surprising morphology indicate a much earlier Eurasian dispersal of Homo than was believed before (Bräuer et al. 1995; Henke 1995; Henke et al. 1999; Henke and Rothe 1999b; Gabunia et al. 2000a, b, 2001; Vekua et al. 2002; Rightmire et al. 2005).
Because early Homo fossil material from Africa that has been classified as H. ergaster (Groves and Mazák 1975; formerly attributed as ‘African’ H. erectus) has a maximum age of only c. 1.9 Ma, and the hominin fossils from Dmanisi (Gabunia et al. 2001; Vekua et al. 2002), Sangiran and Modjokerto (Java, Swisher III 1994; for discussion of the chronology see Langbroek and Roebroeks 2000), and Longgupo, China (Huang et al. 1995) may be of around the same age or a little younger, there is a severe problem of explaining the very early Eurasian dispersal and finding out which species was the pioneering emigrant (Fig. 3.5). The evidence from Longgupo Cave suggests by the given primitive nature of the premolar teeth, that the first hominid to occupy Asia may not have been H. erectus, but perhaps a variant of H. ergaster or even H. habilis. Etler et al. (2001) question this interpretation of the fossils from Longgupo. The mandibular fragment cannot be distinguished from penecontemporary fossil apes, especially the Late Micoene-Pliocene Chinese genus Lufengpithecus, while the incisor is indistinguishable from those of recent land living east Asian people and may be intrusive in the deposit.
The Dmanisi mandible D 211 (Henke 1995; Bräuer et al. 1995) and the later excavated skulls with their small cranial capacities and plesiomorphic features (e.g., postorbital constriction) have been discussed as descendents of and “early” H. ergaster or an evolved H. habilis too (Gabunia et al. 2001). These specimens are actually the key fossils in the current discussion (Balter and Gibbons 2002) of the early Homo-dispersal from Africa. For a better understanding of the complex phylogenetic pattern and deciphering of the ‘muddle in the middle’, as Rightmire (1998) characterized the problems concerning Late Early and Middle Pleistocene human evolution, we have to analyze the regional and chronological hypodigm and discuss a possible African origin and early Asian dispersal (Henke and Rothe 1994, 1999a, b; Larick and Ciochon 1996; Wolpoff 1996–1997; Manzi 2001; Schwartz and Tattersall 2000, 2002). Only when species – in the sense of an evolutionary species (Wiley 1978) – have been adequately defined morphologically appropriate comparisons can be made and the distribution of character states across species is used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses. But until now, we do not have any consensus of the H. erectus hypodigm, which means that we have no agreement on the question of which fossils belong to the taxon that has been defined as H. erectus (Howells 1980, 1993; Rightmire 1990; Franzen 1994a, b; Henke and Rothe 1995; Howell 1996; Antón 2003; Antón et al. 2007; Tattersall 2007). Chronological information concerning the earliest traces of the genus Homo in the Old World is given in Fig. 3.6. Homo fossils which indicate the earliest appearance of H. erectus (or H. ergaster) or an earlier Homo-species out of Africa are described from Asia (incl. Dmanisi; see Fig. 3.7), while Europe has been invaded much later by hominins which have been classified as potential H. erectus or as H. antecessor followed by H. heidelbergensis, and Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis and modern humans (Fig. 3.8) (Ullrich 1998).
Because those hominins that were found in Java since 1891 (formerly Pithecanthropus) and at Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, in the 1930s, now known as H. erectus (formerly attributed to the genus Sinanthropus), were clearly more archaic than fossils from Europe (e.g., Mauer) and Northwest Africa (e.g., Ternifine), it was initially stated that Homo emerged in East Asia and dispersed westward. Since around 1960, when specimens from different localities in the eastern Rift Valley and South Africa were assigned to ‘early Homo’ for the first time, the picture has changed. Especially the hominin fossils around Lake Turkana (initially classified as H. erectus and currently termed H. ergaster) have proved to be the oldest ones and the more plesiomorphic forms too. Consequently, the actually preferred dispersal hypothesis sees the ‘African H. erectus’ or H. ergaster as the species which firstly immigrated to Asia and subsequently to Europe. Advances in dating methods and new finds from China and Indonesia indicate that early Homo may have arrived in East Asia by c. 2 Ma (Fig. 3.6). Alan Turner and O’Regan (2007) recently stated that the effects of tectonic and climatic changes on the Levantine route during the Plio–Pleistocene suggests that a late Pliocene dispersal should be given serious consideration, because the Homo migration can be seen as part of the pattern of dispersion by members of the terrestrial mammalian fauna (Torre et al. 1992; Hemmer 1999; Vrba 2007).
Judged from current archaeological and paleoanthropological evidences Europe was reached not earlier than c. 1.3 Ma (Arzarello et al. 2007; Carbonell et al. 2008), but we have to remember the rule that ‘absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.’
From a palecological view, there has been several times admonished that those hypotheses should not be neglected which propose that Homo may have reached Europe from Far East Asia and not directly from Africa via the Levant (or even the Gulf of Sidra or the Street of Gibraltar). To prove such dispersal scenarios, faunistic information should be taken much more into account, because of the co-evolution of hominin predators with carnivores (Felidae, Canidae). Further information can be gained from the dispersal pattern of the mammals that they scavenged or hunted (Henke et al. 1999; Torre et al. 1992; Turner and O’Regan 2007).
The regional fossil records of the Early and Middle Pleistocene hominins from Africa, Asia, and Europe demonstrate broadly similar morphological trends. There is – in the opinion of the gradualists – no convincing evidence to support a Middle Pleistocene speciation event leading to a distinct H. sapiens – quite the contrary, the proponents of the so-called multiregional theory of hominin evolution (see e.g., Wolpoff 1996–1997, 1999) point out that there is morphological continuity between H. erectus and H. sapiens. For example, the Ngandong skulls from Java, whose age may be no more than 34,000 years, have been described by some authors as H. erectus and by others as ‘archaic’ H. sapiens or a species of its own, Homo soloensis. Due to the repeated occurrence of fossil specimens exhibiting a morphologically intermediate pattern between H. erectus and H. sapiens, which is obviously incompatible with a punctuational interpretation of human evolution, there is cause for much debate on stability and change in H. erectus and need for a critical assessment of the inflation-like splitting of the genus Homo as practised by some protagonists (e.g., Schwartz 2000a, b; Schwartz and Tattersall 2002, 2003; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000).
Anthropologists who argue that a speciation event took place within the genus Homo during the Early and Middle Pleistocene describe many morphological characteristics of H. erectus (incl. H. ergaster) (Table 3.2), but character states that are autapomorphic are obviously rare and controversial (Andrews 1984; Bilsborough and Wood 1986; Bräuer and Mbua 1992; Henke and Rothe 1994; Howell 1986; Howells 1980, 1993; Hublin 1986; Kennedy 1991; Rightmire 1990, 1998, 2007; Wolpoff 1996–1997; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000). The splitting of the Homo hypodigm on the species level is highly controversial. If one does not take the extreme position of so-called ‘lumpers’ like Wolpoff et al. (1994a, b), who explain the variability within Homo by polymorphism and polytypism and merge H. erectus within the evolutionary species H. sapiens, there are diverse proposals by so-called ‘splitters’ ranging up to a maximum of a dozen Homo-species. As it is quite obvious that some of these decisions are much more gut feeling than brain generated, we should seriously ask for the reliability of the applied methodologies and the validity of the described taxa.
The following list describes some of the traits that setH. erectus apart from H. habilis/H. rudolfensis on the one hand and H. sapiens on the other hand. The schedule demonstrates the opinion of ‘splitters’, – so-called ‘lumpers’ do not accept these features as taxonomically valid (see also Henke and Rothe 1994, 1999a, b; Henke 2005; Table 3.2; Fig. 3.9).
Some anthropologists argue that H. erectus is an exclusively Asian taxon which possesses features not present in African specimens and in H. sapiens either. For this reason they see better arguments for an African than for an Asian origin of H. sapiens. Strong opposition comes from ‘multiregionalists’, because the supposed autapomorphic characters that seem to underline the uniqueness of the Asian sample are not truly independent characters, because they are correlated within functional units of adaptation. No anthropologist denies that there are differences between the Asian and African Homo samples under discussion, but the point is whether these differences are sufficient to warrant taxonomic recognition at the species level (see e.g., Bilsborough 1992; Henke and Rothe 1999a; Wiesemüller et al. 2003).
That H. erectus was fully upright and bipedal is still expressed by the species name, but until the virtually complete skeleton KNM-WT 15,000 (Walker and Leakey 1993) was discovered, we knew very little about the H. erectus postcranium. The skeleton of the c. 12-year-old boy from Nariokotome, West-Turkana, which has been dated to 1.6 Ma, enables us to reconstruct stature, limb proportions, locomotion, maturation, and gestation. In adulthood the young boy, who measured 1.68 m, would have been c. 1.80 m tall and weigh c. 47 kg. He was tall and thin, resembling present-day equatorial Africans. Rogers et al. (1996) discussed the behavioral implications of the archaeological and paleogeographical record and early H. erectus anatomy. The described physiological changes (e.g., secondary altricality, longer period of maturation, increase in need for food, increase in long-distance locomotor efficiency, and greater resistance to heat stress), combined with the implied behavioral changes (e.g., greater parental investment, larger home ranges) and the archaeological evidence for a changed behavioral ecology (e.g., lithic standardization by the reduction of single platform cores, use of large flakes for cores) suggests that the ‘early’ Homo of the Early Pleistocene was less constrained than earlier hominins by the natural distribution of resources. This makes him an ideal candidate for emigrating pioneers (see Fig. 3.10). For this reason and from the total morphological pattern, Wolpoff et al. (1994, p. 341) see “no distinct boundary between H. erectus and H. sapiens in time and space.” They regard the lineage as a single evolutionary species, but other authorities describe different earlier and further speciation processes, stating that the emergence of Homo has not been a single linear transformation of one species into another, but rather a “meandering, multifaceted evolution” (see Tattersall 2000b; and the splitter’s pedigree version given in Fig. 3.1). The crucial paleoanthropological puzzle is to find a sound answer to the question: How many speciation processes took place, when and where? (see Hardt and Henke 2007).
Counting of Species – Purely a Matter of Taste?
How Many Homo-Species Were There?
Beside the lumper’s model of gradualism there have been published many speciation models which interpret the hominin fossil record in quite different, obviously much more complex or even complicated ways ranging from moderate views of speciation to the view of extreme ‘splitters’. As mentioned above, the currently preferred approach is the cladistic analysis. This method which has been developed by Hennig (1950) is based upon the presence and absence of larger numbers of traits or character states. Sister groups (adelphotaxa) are formed on the basis of sets of shared derived character states (synapomorphies), and species are defined on the basis of unique derived character states (autapomorphies). Similarities based on synapomorphic traits only are relevant for the reconstruction of a monophylum, a taxonomic group of organisms that has a single common ancestor (see also McHenry 1996; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Rothe and Henke 2006). The cladistic principle sounds easy but isn’t, as the problems start with the choice and weighting of the characters, the scoring of character states and end with the arbitrariness of the principle of parsimony, the rule, that in the presence of two competing and otherwise equal explanations, the simpler of both should be considered the most likely. Ockham’s razor, the theory regarding the simplest explanation as the best solution is highly controversial (Wiesemüller et al. 2003). Dilemmas are programmed and we have to solve them as we have to consider that the evolution of our own species has been a singular real-historic-genetical event and the paleoanthropological challenge is to reconstruct this unique phylogenetic incidence. Referring to the different taxonomical schools (see above) we have to state that we can not expect consensus due to the underlying principals and the applied methodological approaches. For this reason we have to discuss the opposed phylogenetic models against the methodological background (Rothe and Henke 2006).
Once again: lumpers’ combine facts and evidences into simple, highly variable categories; taxonomically they create taxa that include variable morphs that might – to a ‘splitter’ – be better allotted to several taxa. The ‘splitters’ are convinced that where distinct morphs can readily be identified it would seem most productive to assume they represent species unless there is compelling reason to believe otherwise, (see Campbell and Loy 2000; Mai et al. 2005). Is species recognition purely a matter of taste? Are species constructions – or do they really exist? (for different views see Wiley 1978; Ax 1984; Willmann 1985; Tattersall 1986; Wolpoff and Caspari 1997; Schwartz 2000a; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Rothe and Henke 2006; Futuyama 2007). The list given in Table 3.3 demonstrates that more than a dozen species of the genus Homo have been described with increasing tendency during the last decades. For this reason we must ask how reliable the tremendous splitting is and how valid the definitions are.
Opposing Views of Lumpers and Splitters
Scenario I: Multiregional Evolution Model (MRE)
Jan Jelínek, a life-long proponent of regional continuity, influenced by the theories of Franz Weidenreich and effected by his own broad anthropological and archaeological research in the Old World continents and Australia asked: “Have we any solid scientific grounds on which to consider Middle Pleistocene European finds, with earlier morphological cranial changes, as Homo sapiens and the extra-European finds evolving in the same direction but in somewhat different degree and time sequence of adaptation into different conditions as Homo erectus?”
His answer was that the evidences from the global perspective should lead us sink H. erectus into H. sapiens (Jelinek 1978). He stated his view more precisely in the eighties: “If the differential diagnosis between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens cannot be other than by convention, and […] this convention must be different for different geographical regions, then the value of such difference should be critically considered […] It is time to replace the paleontological species with a biological one. […] Paleontological taxonomy cannot be in contradiction with […] biological facts” (Jelínek 1981, p. 88; see also Wolpoff and Caspari 1997, p. 253).
Together with Milford Wolpoff et al. (1994, 341) he proposed “to merge Homo erectus within the evolutionary species Homo sapiens”. Wolpoff and Caspari (1997, p. 255) point to the fact that the evolutionary species “… retains the essence of the biological species – reproductive isolation (the reason it can maintain its identity and has unique evolutionary tendencies) – while avoiding many of its deficiencies: lack of time-depth, absence of morphological criteria for diagnosis, and, perhaps most important, emphasis on reproductive ties alone as a major cohesive force.”
The ‘multiregionalists’ interpret the fossil evidences within the rationales of the evolutionary species concept as Jelínek proposed in the 1960s: “No species splits occurred when H. sapiens is said to originate from H. erectus; there was no division of one species into two, and therefore no species birthing…” (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997; p. 256).
The multiregional evolution model (MRE) states that there is no basis for distinguishing a species called H. sapiens from a species H. erectus (and other Middle and Late Pleistocene species); Fig. 3.11a reflects this gradualist view. The MRE traces all modern populations back to c. 2 Ma when humans migrated out of Africa for the first time. Since this phase there has been no speciation, but an interconnected web of ancient lineages existed in which the genetic contributions to all living peoples varied regionally and temporally (Thorne and Wolpoff 1981, 1992; Wolpoff 1999). We straighten out here that the MRE is in contrast to otherwise uttered opinions no candelabra-model. The MRE has its historic base in the polycentric evolution hypothesis of Franz Weidenreich, proposing “that the conditions associated with the initial migrations of humans from Africa … created the central and peripheral contrasts that affected the early establishment of regional features at the peripheries of the human range” (Wolpoff 1992, p. 26).
Scenario II: Recent African Origin Models (RAOM)
In opposite to the MRE all other phylogenetic models described here suppose at least one or more speciation events within the genus Homo. A widely accepted recent African origin model (RAOM) has been proposed by Rightmire (1998, 2001a, b; Fig. 3.11b). The pedigree describes three further speciations after the emergence of Homo ergaster/erectus. At around 0.8 Ma an evolutionary split in Africa is leading to H. heidelbergensis. While Rightmire leaves the phylogenetic role ofH. antecessor in his model open (Rightmire 2001a), he recently discussed the hypothesis that this species could be a direct descent of H. erectus and the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis on the one side and H. rhodesiensis on the other side (Rightmire 2007; see also Stringer 2002, Fig. 3.11c, discussed below).
H. heidelbergensis, firstly described in 1907, has reached a reinterpretation during the last decade (Rightmire 1998). The hypothesis is that H. heidelbergensis has given on the one hand rise to H. neanderthalensis, who emerged in Europe, and on the other hand to H. sapiens or modern humans, who split in Africa and successively occupied all other continents. The traditional model of the sixties and seventies of the last century implied that H. erectus was a valid species in all the continents of the Old World. The small European hypodigm was divided in different subspecies such as H. erectus heidelbergensis,H. erectus bilzingslebenensis, H. erectus tautavelensis and some others. The subspecies-splitting was applied for the Asian and African branches of H. erectus as well (for scientific historical aspects see Groves 1989; Henke and Rothe 1994). With the rapid increase of the hypodigm during the eighties of the last century the validity of a European H. erectus taxon was more and more disputed (Henke and Rothe 1994, 1995; Rightmire 1998). However, meanwhile many paleoanthropologists believe that H. erectus never has reached Europe, but there are different causes for this change of view. While Wolpoff et al. (1994) – as just mentioned – and Wolpoff (1996–1997, 1999) do not believe that the taxon H. erectus is valid in any event, others regard those European specimens that were formerly discussed as belonging to H. erectus as a species of their own, which originated in Africa around 0.6 Ma. For taxonomic reasons it was named H. heidelbergensis (see Rightmire 1990, 1998; Lahr 1994; Groves and Lahr 1994; Condemi and von Koenigswald 1997; overview in Ullrich 1998; Wagner and Beinhauer 1997; Wagner et al. 1997; Hardt and Henke 2007). It is – as proponents of this classification claim – best described by specimens from Kabwe (formerly Broken Hill, Zambia), Bodo (Middle Awash, Ethiopia), Petralona (Greece), Arago (France) and Sima de los Huesos (Atapuerca, Spain) (more details see Figs. 3.6 and 3.7).
Concerning the validity of the derived features ofH. heidelbergensis there is no consensus at all. Astonishingly enough, that the Kabwe/Broken Hill skull was formerly attributed to ‘archaic’ H. sapiens and some authorities adhere to this classification though the gradual split in ‘early and late archaic’ H. sapiens does not match with the rules ofclassification. However, this type of array is insofar of interesting importance as Kabwe 1 and Bodo are key fossils in all out-of-Africa hypotheses. Both specimens are recognised as representatives of the first appearance of people distinct fromH. erectus. Rightmire (1998, p. 135) describes for H. heidelbergensis on the one hand a pattern of plesiomorphic H. erectus-like traits and on the other hand apomorphies like an evolved endocranial volume, more sapiens-like proportions of the frontal and temporal bone, as well as details of the nose and the palate as also present in the specimens from Elandsfontein (South Africa), Ndutu (Kenya) and European fossils from Petralona, Arago and others (see Figs. 3.6 and 3.7).
Newly unearthed fossils from Bouri (Middle Awash, Ethiopia) yield unique insights into unresolved spatial and temporal relationships of H. erectus and younger taxa. The hominin calvaria and postcranial remains from the Dakanihylo Member of the Bouri Formation are ∼1.0 Ma; they are associated with abundant early Acheulean stone tools and a vertebrate fauna that indicates predominantly a savannah environment. Asfaw et al. (2002, p. 317) are convinced that the morphological attributes of the fossils “centre [them] firmly within H. erectus”. They see strong indications “that African H. erectus was the ancestor of Homo sapiens.” Furthermore, the new fossils from Bouri shed light on newly described c. 0.8 Ma fossils from the Gran Dolina of Atapuerca (Spain), which have been classified as H. antecessor (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Arsuaga et al. 1999; Carbonell et al. 1999). The hypothesis that this species nova may have originated in Africa and given rise to H. neanderthalensis, which flourished between ca. 200 and 30 ka while H. sapiens evolved as adelphotaxon of H. heidelbergensis in Africa, is in our opinion a daring hypothesis. By new fossil evidence from Italy it is now even less reliable than before. Fresh arguments to drop the taxon H. antecessor come from the research of the 800–900 ka calvarium from Ceprano (Ascenzi et al. 2000a, b; Manzi 2001, 2004; Manzi et al. 2001, 2003; Bruner and Manzi 2007). The specimen exhibits a morphological pattern which separates it from archaic humans like H. ergaster and H. erectus. While Mallegni et al. (2003) consider the cranial features as indication for a separate species (H. cepranensis), others as Bruner and Manzi (2007) evaluate them as ancestral morphology of the H. heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis hypodigm. Both authors are pleasantly discrete when they state: “Nevertheless, a definite taxonomic interpretation of this fossil cannot be provided until more appropriate comparative fossil samples (both in terms of chronology and anatomical completeness) are recovered” (Bruner and Manzi 2007, p. 365).
As mentioned above, there are highly differing scenarios of the origin of ‘anatomically’ modern human beings. The irreconcilable standpoints of the proponents of the MRE and the RAOMs have been hardened by totally different species concepts. The reproach of Tattersall (cited by Flanagan, taken from Wolpoff 1999, p. 397) is that the ‘multiregionalists’ are “linking everything from H. erectus to H. sapiens into ‘one big happy family’ […] Paleontologists do not give other animals such a special treatment.” Is this really an appropriate argument if we consider the facts?
Wolpoff, the protagonist of the ‘multiregionalists’, comments on Tattersall’s critique by quoting the evolutionary geneticist A. Templeton (2002): “We make far too much of our anatomical difference […] Biologists who study, say, fruit flies know that each population can look quite distinct […] and yet they are tempted to hastily split them into separate species. Why must we look at ourselves any differently?” (Wolpoff 1999, p. 397).
The crucial case of whether there was more than one Homo-species comes from the long-standing unsolved debate on the Neanderthal problem: in spite of contrary reports, especially comments on molecular biological results, there is in our opinion currently no solution to the problem by mtDNA (see Henke and Rothe 1999a, b) in spite of differing opinions and claims (Serre et al. 2004; Caramelli et al. 2006; Orlando et al. 2006; Krause et al. 2007), as the final decision can only be obtained by nDNA analyses. Recent conducted genomic research, studying the “phenotypic sweep” by Eswaran et al. (2005, p. 1) came to the conclusion “that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans.” These results coincide with those of Relethford (2001a) who regards a “Mostly out of Africa”-model, in which Africa contributes the most to accumulated ancestry in all regions, as the adequate MRE-version. In both cases there is no speciation accepted to explain the variability of Middle and Late Pleistocene Homo.
The different RAOMs suggests that the humankind descends from a very recent modern population that lived in Africa only around 200 ka and replaced early humans elsewhere. This hypothesis has been called by its opponents ‘Garden of Eden model’ because it pleads for a – very recent – single regional human origin. The main elements of this theory are derived from the chronological and morphological comparison of the African and non-African fossil specimens. The presence of regional continuity only in Africa and the first appearance of modern human features in this continent were taken as strong arguments for different replacement models (Afro–European sapiens hypothesis with hybridisation; Bräuer 1984; see further Bräuer 2006, 2007; Fig. 3.11d). Although Bräuer’s hypothesis supported the idea of areplacement with admixture, other authorities advocated – in the beginning – for a total replacement from paleoanthropological (Stringer 1986; Stringer and Andrews 1988) or paleogenetic reasons (mtDNA research; Cann et al. 1987; Stoneking and Cann 1989; Wilson and Cann 1992). Especially those genetic studies, which revealed that an African woman from c. 200–150 ka– called Eve or ‘Lucky Mother’ – was our last common ancestor, gained much credit in public discussions and its populist summary ‘we are all Africans’.
What we actually know about diversity and variability is that there is a great amount of Homo fossils from the late Middle and Late Pleistocene in Africa, Asia, and Europe whose morphology differs – in comparison to earlier specimens – only within a moderate range. The diachronic comparative analysis allows describing a trend to less massive faces and larger skullcaps, approaching step by step the pattern of [anatomically] modern humans in Africa. Because this gradual process is less convincingly verified in Asia and extremely controversial in Europe, so-called out-of-Africa hypotheses have reached a high rate of acceptance (Stringer 1982, 1992; Bräuer 1984; Cann 1992) compared to the gradualistic, anagenetic MRE (Thorne and Wolpoff 1992; Wolpoff 1996–1997; Wolpoff et al. 1984).
The debate has received a new dynamic by the results of evolutionary human genetic research. The results from mtDNA analyses of recent female samples (Cann et al. 1987; Cann 1992) were topped by sophisticated aDNA research on the classical Neanderthal specimens from Felderhofer Grotto (Krings et al. 1997), Mezmaiskaya Cave (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000), and other specimens (Pääbo et al. 2004; Serre et al. 2004). At least the popular science was convinced that the Neanderthal problem was solved by aDNA analyses; cover-headlines like “Neanderthals are not our ancestors” (see Krings et al. 1997) did not miss the target, the intended message that Neanderthal man belonged to a species of its own. But those who read the papers attentively will realize that these results do “not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool” (Serre et al. 2004, p. 0313).
In spite of contrasting assertions by the proponents of the different models and refining of the RAOMs by human demographic history (see Excoffier 2002), there is the conclusion that none of them is unequivocally supported by the available data, although the out-of-Africa model gainedtremendous – in our judge highly undeserved – support by the aDNA results from Neanderthal fossils. The currentlyrunning Neanderthal Genome Project, a joint project of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Branford, Connecticut-based 454 Life Sciences Corp., to map the Neanderthal genome, or DNA code should be observed with critical scepticism. Of course can weexpect very interesting genomic results; however, the prognosis is indicated that each taxonomic hypothesis will create new controversies. A cynic would say that those anthropologists who look for differences will find them; the crucial question will be how to evaluate them within taxonomical categories (Storch et al. 2001; Wägele 2000; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Jobling et al. 2004; Rothe and Henke 2001, 2006; Futuyama 2007).
Clifford Jolly’s (2001, p. 177) studies commemorate to circumspective interpretations. He looked for population genetical analogies from the papionin monkeys and their implications for human evolution and concluded: “An overall similarity in depth of genetic diversity suggests that papionin taxa such as Papio baboons, rather than extinct humans, may present the better analogy for human population structure of the “prereplacement” era. Neanderthals and Afro-Arabian “premodern” populations may have been analogous to extant baboons (and macaque) allotaxa: “phylogenetic” species, but “biological” subspecies.”
Within the current version of his replacement model with hybridisation Bräuer (2007) sees good support from different lines of evidence that the European, African and possibly the Asian Middle Pleistocene lineages too belonged to one polytypic species H. sapiens (see Fig. 3.11d). We see in his statement the logical taxonomic consequence of the RAOM with hybridization and replacement.
In addition, concerning the evolution of European hominids Hublin (1998, p. 301) suggested that “…the development of the Neanderthal morphology results from an accretion phenomenon beginning in the middle of the Middle Pleistocene, around 450,000 BP…” due to drastic climatic changes in the Pleistocene. Caused by processes of geographical isolation through ice sheets, genetic drift, and intense selection as a result of the extremely cold environmental conditions the Neanderthal features run through a gradual development until they reached their terminal status (Couture and Hublin 2005; Harvati 2007; contra see Hawks and Wolpoff 2001). The proposed “Accretion model” is divided into four parts ranging from Stage 1 “early pre-Neanderthals” over Stage 2 “pre-Neanderthals” and Stage 3 “early Neanderthals” to Stage 4 “classic Neanderthals” with their typical features fully expressed (see Fig. 3.7). Consequentially, this model also offers two possibilities, namely to assign Neanderthals as an outstanding species H. neanderthalensis within a chrono- or morphospecies concept or as a subspecies of H. sapiens within an anagenetic concept. Whatever decision will be made, they will raise several new questions pertaining to African and European Middle Pleistocene lineages of H. heidelbergensis and H. rhodesiensis respectively.
There seems to be much more overlap with the MRE as former discussions indicated (Smith and Spencer 1984; Akazawa et al. 1992; Bräuer and Smith 1992; Wolpoff 1999; Relethford 2001a, b; Tobias et al. 2001). There is to recognize a gradual approximation to the MRE, which hypothesizes that modern humans evolved throughout the Old World as a single species roughly 2–1 Ma. But by far not all paleoanthropologists agree that speciation is a special case, an elusive phenomenon as e.g. Brace (1993), Frayer et al. (1993), Wolpoff and Caspari (1997, 2000), Wolpoff (1999), Grubb (1999) assert. Quite the contrary seems to be the case, not only in paleoanthropology (see Table 3.3) but in primatology too. The growing proliferation of specific names should be regarded with high scepticism, that’s why Loring Brace (1993, p. 151) expressed in his paper with the hissing title “The creation of specific hominid names: Gloria in excelsis deo? or ego? or praxis?” the suspicion “that the vanity of the namer is frequently involved in the creation of new nomina”. In any case, each inauguration of a new taxon must be based on agreed biological principles and a sound methodological concept, otherwise each further discussion is in vain, but as paleoanthropology is a fossil- and journalism-driven science there is little hope to escape this kind of discussions (White 2000; Henke 2006, 2007; for the general problem of popular sciences see Franck 1998). Unprofessional handling of the fossil specimens like LB 1 from Flores is a sad example how paleoanthropology is discredited to “paleopoesy” and looses its credibility. Neither such a fascinating discipline like paleoanthropology nor the rare specimens as witness of our evolutionary history merit this kind of para-scientific treatment in times where paleoanthropology has been grown up and consolidated as a serious discipline (see Henke and Rothe 1994, 1999, 2003; Henke and Tattersall 2007).
The “muddle in the middle” will continue as long as arbitrary species like H. antecessor are created by the analysis of very scanty fossil material. This kind of weak founded taxonomical proposals does not contribute to a consolidation of our diverse views on modern human origins The description of two lineages of species (H. antecessor – H. heidelbergensis – H. neanderthalensis and H. antecessor – H. rhodesiensis –H. sapiens) is extremely problematic as it describes no cladistic events but successive speciations. If one would exclude this kind of chronospecies and regard the changes as anagenetical process, it would be mere consistent to regard the EuropeanH. heidelbergensis as H. neanderthalensis (Stringer 1996; Arsuaga et al. 1997; Hardt and Henke 2007). Simultaneously H. rhodesiensis should be involved in the taxon H. sapiens.
Whether species like H. helmei, H. soloensis andH. palaeojavanicus which have been redefined by some authorities during the last years as well as the creation of the species novae H. georgicus (Gabunia et al. 2002), H. cepranensis (Mallegni et al. 2003) and especially H. floresiensis (Brown et al. 2004; see also Falk et al. 2005) are valid evolutionary species is to doubt, as a detailed description of their autapomorphies is missing.
Concluding Remarks
It is quite obvious that paleoanthropologists have, in spite of a tremendous increase of methodological approaches and facts, no clear picture of the speciation processes which took place in the genus Homo. Nevertheless most of them agree that our genus originated in Africa around 2 Ma. Soon after the first appearance of “early Homo” (most probably Homo ergaster) our forerunners immigrated into Asia and much later into Europe. After the first dispersal around c. 1.8 Ma there followed a second expansion out of Africa between 840 and 420 ka, followed by a third expansion wave around 150–100 ka as shown in Fig. 3.5. That an out-of-Africa dispersal took place again and again is beyond doubt, but whether this was a demic diffusion or a successive exodus of separate taxa with hybridization or replacement of the archaic populations is still highly controversial. The core problem is that it is not a matter of taste how many speciation events took place in this scenario. As this is a long-lasting problem we are afraid that paleoanthropologists don’t have or don’t apply the right methodological instruments to figure out how many species there have been. The way we see it is much more near the lumpers’ view, than those of the splitters’, as there are good arguments from different kinds of sources that our polymorphic and polytypic species Homo sapiens has relatively deep roots and that the dispersal was an early single event, followed by a permanent, uninterrupted but in the intensity regionally and chronologically highly varying gene flow with movements out of Africa to Asia and possibly back again (at least from Asia; Wolpoff 1999; Relethford 1999, 2001a; Zilhão 2006). Quite unexpected after 25 years of heated discussion Bräuer’s RAOM approaches the MRE though there remain principal discrepancies. Bräuer (2008) states “that the African Middle Pleistocene lineage represents the species Homo sapiens and that the European Neandertal lineage, which derived from early African Homo sapiens, belongs to the same species except that there would be unequivocal evidence that Neandertals and modern humans were too different to be one species”. Also Relethford’s (2001a) “mostly out of Africa” model based on a population genetical approach point to a kind of compromise, as it only causes confusion to call in a splitter’s manner any unit a species. However, this may be a wishful thinking. Gilbert et al. (2003, p. 259) put it this way: “We do not know where the gene flow barriers were among the sampled populations, nor do we know about unsampled populations/lineages.” Discussing the taxonomic status ofH. rudolfensis and H. habilis Wood (1996b, p. 112) supplementary concluded that “we are aware from the more recent fossil record of the major morphological “components” of Homo, but we remain ignorant about their functional interrelationships, the order in which they arose, and their relationships to the environmental and ecological pressures and constraints prevailing around 2 Ma.” This view is still valid and remains a challenge for the next decade.
References
Aiello, L. (1996). Terrestriality, bipedalism and the origin of language. In W. G. Runciman, J. Maynard Smith, & R. I. M. Dunbar (Eds.), Evolution and social patterns in primates and man (pp. 269–289). Oxford: The British Academy, Oxford University Press.
Aiello, L., & Dean, C. (1990). An introduction to human evolutionary anatomy. San Diego: Academic.
Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., & Kimura, T. (Eds.). (1992). The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in Asia. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.
Alexeev, V. P. (1986). The origin of the human race. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Andrews, P. (1984). On the characters that define Homo erectus (Courier Forschungsberichte Senckenberg, Vol. 69, pp. 167–198). Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg.
Antón, S. (2003). Natural history of Homo erectus. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 46, 126–170.
Antón, S., Spoor, F., Fellmann, C. D., & Swisher, C. C., III. (2007). Defining Homo erectus: Size considered. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1655–1694). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Arambourg, C. (1963). Le gisement de Ternifine. Part IC. Le gisement de Ternifine. Part IC Mémoire, 32, 37–190.
Arsuaga, J. L., Martínez, I., Gracia, A., & Lorenzo, C. (1997). The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. Journal of Human Evolution, 33, 219–281.
Arsuaga, J. L., Martínez, Lorenzo, C., Gracia, A., Muñoz, A., Alonso, O., & Gallego, J. (1999). The human cranial remains from Gran Dolina Lower Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 37, 431–457.
Arzarello, M., Marcolinui, F., Pavia, G., Pavia, M., Petrinio, C., Petrucci, M., Rook, L., & Sardella, R. (2007). Evidence of earliest human occurrence in Europe: The site of Pirro Nord (Southern Italy). Die Naturwissenschaften, 94, 107–112.
Ascenzi, A., Biddittu, I., Cassoli, P. F., Segre, A. G., & Segre-Naldini, E. (2000a). A calvarium of late Homo erectus from Ceprano, Italy. Journal of Human Evolution, 31, 409–423.
Ascenzi, A., Mallegni, F., Manzi, G., Segre, A. G., & Segre Naldini, E. (2000b). A re-appraisal of Ceprano calvaria affinities with Homo erectus, after the new reconstruction. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 443–450.
Asfaw, B., Gilbert, W. H., Beyene, Y., Hart, W. K., Renne, P. R., WoldeGabriel, G., Vrba, E. S., & White, T. D. (2002). Remains of Homo erectus from Bouri, Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 416, 317–320.
Ax, P. (1984). Das phylogenetische System. Systematisierung der lebenden Natur aufgrund ihrer Phylogenese. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Balter, M., & Gibbons, A. (2002). Were ‘Little People’ the first to venture out of Africa? Science, 297, 26–27.
Bermudez de Castro, J. M., Arsuaga, J. L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martínez, I., & Mosquera, M. (1997). A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science, 276, 1392–1395.
Bilsborough, A. (1992). Human evolution. London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
Bilsborough, A., & Wood, B. A. (1986). The nature origin and fate of Homo erectus. In B. A. Wood, L. Martin, & P. Andrews (Eds.), Major topics in primate and human evolution (pp. 295–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (1988). The non-Darwinian revolution: Reinterpreting a historical myth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brace, C. L. (1962). Refocusing the Neanderthal problem. American Anthropologist, 64, 729–741.
Brace, C. L. (1964). The fate of the “classic” Neanderthals: A consideration of hominid catastrophism. Current Anthropology, 5, 3–66.
Brace, C. L. (1993). The creation of specific hominid names: Gloria in excelsis deo? or ego? or praxis? Human Evolution, 8, 151–166.
Bräuer, G. (1984). The “Afro-European sapiens hypothesis” and hominid evolution in East Asia during the late middle and upper Pleistocene. In P. Andrews & J. L. Franzen (Eds.), The early evolution of man, with special emphasis on Southeast Asia and Africa (Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Vol. 69, pp. 145–165). Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg.
Bräuer, G. (2006). Das Out-of-Africa-Modell und die Kontroverse um den Ursprung des modernen Menschen. In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Woher kommt der Mensch? (pp. 171–196). Tübingen: Attempto Verlag.
Bräuer, G. (2007). Origin of modern humans. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1749–1780). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bräuer, G., & Mbua, E. (1992). Homo erectus features used in cladistics and their variability in Asian and African hominids. Journal of Human Evolution, 22, 79–108.
Bräuer, G., & Smith, F. (Eds.). (1992). Continuity or replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Bräuer, G., Henke, W., & Schultz, M. (1995). Der hominide Unterkiefer von Dmanisi: Morphologie, Pathologie und Analysen zur Klassifikation. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 42, 143–203. Tafel 57-64.
Bromage, T. G., Schrenk, F., & Zonneveld, F. W. (1995). Paleoanthropology of the Malawi Rift: An early hominid mandible from the Chiwondo Beds, northern Malawi. Journal of Human Evolution, 28, 71–108.
Brown, P., Sutikna, T., Morwood, M. J., Soejono, R. P., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E., & Rokus Awe, Due. (2004). A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature, 431, 1055–1061.
Bruner, E., & Manzi, G. (2007). Landmark-based shape analysis of the archaic Homo calvarium from Ceprano (Italy). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132, 355–366.
Campbell, B.G. (1965). The nomenclature of the Hominidae, including a definite list of hominid taxa. Occasional Papers Royal Anthropological Institute London 22.
Campbell, B. G., & Loy, J. L. (2000). Humankind emerging (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cann, R. L. (1992). A mitochondrial perspective on replacement and continuity in human evolution. In G. Bräuer & F. Smith (Eds.), Continuity or replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 65–73). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., & Wilson, A. C. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature, 325, 31–36.
Caramelli, D., Lalueza-Fox, C., Condemi, S., Longo, L., Milani, L., Manfredini, A., de Saint Pierre, M., Adoni, F., Lari, M., Giutini, P., et al. (2006). A highly divergent mtDNA sequence in a Neandertal individual from Italy. Current Biology, 16, R630–R632.
Carbonell, E., Esteban, M., Nájera, A. M., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X. P., Ollé, A., Sala, R., Vergès, J. M., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., & Ortega, A. I. (1999). The Pleistocene site of Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain: A history of the archaeological investigations. Journal of Human Evolution, 37, 313–324.
Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Parés, J. M., Pérez-González, A., Cuenca-Bescós, G., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., van der Huguet, R., Made, J., et al. (2008). The first hominin of Europe. Nature, 452, 465–470.
Chamberlain, A. T., & Wood, B. A. (1987). Early hominid phylogeny. Journal of Human Evolution, 16, 119–133.
Collard, M., & Wood, B. A. (2007). Defining the genus Homo. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 1575–1610). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Condemi, S., & von Koenigswald, W. (1997). Der Unterkiefer von Mauer. In G. A. Wagner & K. W. Beinhauer (Eds.), Homo heidelbergensis von Mauer. Das Auftreten des Menschen in Europa (pp. 31–61). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter GmbH.
Corbey, R., & Roebroeks, W. (Eds.). (2001). Studying human origins: Disciplinary history and epistemology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Couture, C., & Hublin, J.-J. (2005). Les Néandertaliens. In O. Dutour, J.-J. Hublin, & B. Vandermeersch (Eds.), Origine et Evolution des Populations Humaines (pp. 129–150). Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Reprinted 1981 by Princeton University Press ed. John Murray (1871), London.
Delson, E. (2000). Paleoanthropology. In E. Delson, I. Tattersall, J. A. Van Couvering, & A. S. Brooks (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human evolution and prehistory (2nd ed., pp. 504–505). New York: Garland.
Desmond, A. (1997). Huxley. London: Penguin Books.
Dreyer, T. F. (1935). A human skull from Florisbad, Orange Free State, with a note on the endocranial cast (by C.U. Ariëns-Kappers). Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, 38, 119–128.
Dubois, E. (1892). Paleontologische anderzoekingen op Java. Versl Mijnw Batavia, 3, 20–14.
Dubois, E. (1894). Pithecanthropus erectus, eine menschenähnliche Übergangsform aus Java. Batavia: Landesdruckerei.
Dubois, E. (1940). The fossil remains discovered by Dr. G. H. R. von Koenigswald and attributed by him to Pithecanthropus erectus, in reality remains of Homo wadjakensis (syn. Homo soloensis). Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, 43, 494–496, 842–851, 1268–1275.
Dunsworth, H., & Walker, A. (2002). Early genus Homo. In W. C. Hartwig (Ed.), The primate fossil record (pp. 419–435). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eswaran, V., Harpending, H., & Rogers, A. R. (2005). Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 49, 1–18.
Etler, D. A., Crummett, T. L., & Wolpoff, M. H. (2001). Longgupo: Early Homo colonizer or Late Pliocene Lufengpithecus survivor in South China. Human Evolution, 16, 1–12.
Etter, W. (1994). Palökologie. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Excoffier, L. (2002). Human demographic history: Redefining the recent African origin model. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 12, 675–682.
Falk, D., Hildebolt, C., Smith, K., Morwood, M. J., Sutikna, T., Brown, P., Jatmiko, Saptomo, E. W., Brunsden, B., & Prior, F. (2005). The brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis. Science, 308, 242–245.
Finlayson, C. (2004). Neanderthals and modern humans (An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foley, R. A. (1987). Another unique species: Patterns in human evolutionary ecology. Harlow, New York: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Foley, R. A. (1991). How many hominid species should there be? Journal of Human Evolution, 20, 413–427.
Foley, R. A. (2001). In the shadow of the modern synthesis? Alternative perspectives on the last fifty years of paleoanthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 10, 5–14.
Franck, G. (1998). Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit: Ein Entwurf. München: Edition Hanser.
Franzen, J. L. (Ed.). (1994a). 100 years of Pithecanthropus the Homo erectus problem (Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Vol. 171). Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg.
Franzen, J. L. (1994b). The Homo erectus problem. In J. L. Franzen (Ed.), 100 years of Pithecanthropus the Homo erectus problem (Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Vol. 171, pp. 9–10). Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg.
Frayer, D. W., Wolpoff, M. H., Thorne, A. G., Smith, F. H., & Pope, G. (1993). Theories of modern human origins: The paleontological test. American Anthropologist, 95, 14–50.
Friederichs, H. F. (1932). Schädel und Unterkiefer von Piltdown (“Eoanthropus dawsoni Woodward”) in neuer Untersuchung. Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte, 98, 199–262.
Futuyama, D. J. (2007). Evolution. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., & Lordkipanidze, D. (2000a). Taxonomy of the Dmanisi crania. Science, 289, 55–56.
Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Swisher, C. C., III, Ferring, R., Justus, A., Nioradze, M., Tvalchrelidze, M., Antón, S. C., Bosinski, G., Jöris, O., de Lumley, M.-A., Masjuradze, G., & Mouskhelishvili, A. (2000b). Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from Dmanisi Republic of Georgia: Taxonomy, geological setting and age. Science, 288, 1019–1025.
Gabunia, L., Antón, S. C., Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Justus, A., & Swisher, C. C., III. (2001). Dmanisi and dispersal. Evolutionary Anthropology, 10, 158–170.
Gabunia, L., de Lumley, M.-A., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., & de Lumley, H. (2002). Discovery of a new hominid at Dmanisi (Transcaucasia, Georgia). Comptes Rendus Palevolution, 1, 243–253.
Gilbert, W. H., White, T. D., & Asfaw, B. (2003). Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo “cepranensis”, and the Daka cranium. Journal of Human Evolution, 45, 255–259.
Gorjanović-Kramberger, K. (1906). Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien (Ein Beitrag zur Paläoanthropologie). Wiesbaden: C. W. Kreidel’s Verlag.
Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115–151.
Grine, F. E. (2001). Implications of morphological diversity in early Homo crania from Eastern and Southern Africa. In P. V. Tobias, M. A. Raath, J. Moggi-Cecchi, & G. A. Doyle (Eds.), Humanity from African naissance to coming millennia (pp. 107–116). Firenze/Johannesburg: Firenze University Press/Witwatersrand University Press.
Groves, C. P. (1989). A regional approach to the problem of the origin of modern humans in Australasia. In P. Mellars & C. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution: Behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans (pp. 274–285). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Groves, C. P., & Lahr, M. M. (1994). A bush not a ladder: Speciation and replacement in Human evolution. Perspectives in Human Biology, 4, 1–11.
Groves, C. P., & Mazák, V. (1975). An approach to the taxonomy of the Hominidae: Gracile Villafranchian hominids in Africa. Casopis pro Mineralogii a Geologii, 20, 225–247.
Grubb, P. (1999). Evolutionary processes implicit in distribution patterns of modern African mammals. In T. G. Bromage & F. Schrenk (Eds.), African biogeography, climate change, and human evolution (pp. 150–164). New York: Oxford University Press.
Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (Vol. 2). Berlin: G. Reimer Verlag.
Haidle, M. (2007). Archeology. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 261–289). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hardt, T., & Henke, W. (2007). Zur stammesgeschichtlichen Stellung des Homo heidelbergensis. In G. A. Wagner, H. Rieder, L. Zöller, & E. Mick (Eds.), Homo heidelbergensis. Schlüsselfund der Menschheitsgeschichte (pp. 184–202). Stuttgart, S: Konrad Theiss Verlag.
Hardt, T., Hardt, B., & Menke, P. (2007). Paleoecology: An adequate window on the past? In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 503–554). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Hartwig-Scherer, S., & Martin, R. D. (1991). Was “Lucy”more human than her “child”? Observation on early hominid postcranial skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution, 21, 439–449.
Harvati, K. (2003). Quantitative analysis of Neanderthal temporal bone morphology using 3-D geometric morphometrics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 120, 323–338.
Harvati, K. (2007). Neanderthals and their contemporaries. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1717–1748). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hawks, J. D., & Wolpoff, M. H. (2001). The accretion model of Neandertal evolution. Evolution, 55, 1474–1485.
Hemmer, H. (1999). Erstbesiedlung Europas nach Indizien der Großsäugergesellschaft. In W. Henke & H. Rothe (Eds.), Stammesgeschichte des Menschen (pp. 214–215). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Hemmer, H. (2007). Estimation of basic life history data of fossil hominoids. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 587–620). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Henke, W. (2003a). Evaluating human fossil finds. In G. Grupe &J. Peters (Eds.), Decyphering ancient bones of bioarchaeological collections (Documenta Archaeobiologicae, Vol. 1, pp. 59–76). Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Henke, W. (2003b). Population dynamics during the European Middle and Late Pleistocene – smooth or jumpy? In H. Meller (Ed.), Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt – Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte (Festschrift Dietrich Mania Band 57/I, pp. 247–258). Halle (Saale).
Henke, W. (2005). Human biological evolution. In F. M. Wuketits & F. J. Ayala (Eds.), Handbook of evolution (Vol. 2, pp. 117–222). Weinheim, New York: Wiley – VCH.
Henke, W. (2006a). Evolution und Verbreitung des Genus Homo – Aktuelle Befunde aus evolutionsökologischer Sicht. In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Woher kommt der Mensch? (pp. 104–142). Tübingen: Attempto Verlag.
Henke, W. (2006b). Gorjanović-Kramberger’s research in Krapina – Its impact on paleoanthropology in Germany. Periodicum Biologorum, 108, 239–252.
Henke, W. (2007). Historical overview of paleoanthropological research. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–56). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (1994). Paläoanthropologie. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (1995). Homo erectus - valides Taxon der europäischen Hominiden? Bulletin de Société Suisse d´Anthropologie, 1, 15–26.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (1999a). Stammesgeschichte des Menschen. Eine Einführung. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (1999b). Die phylogenetische Stellung des Neandertalers. Biologie in unserer Zeit, 29(6), 320–329.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (2001). Entstehung des Genus Homo. Ein Quantensprung in der Evolution des Menschen. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften. Biologie in der Schule, 50, 29–33.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (2003). Menschwerdung. Franfurt a. M: S. Fischer Verlag.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (2005). Ursprung, Adaptation und Verbreitung der Gattung Homo. Marginalien zur Evolution eines global player. In B. Kleeberg, T. Walter, & F. Crivellari (Eds.), Urmensch und Wissenschaften. Eine Bestandsaufnahme (pp. 89–124). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Henke, W., & Rothe, H. (2006). Zur Entwicklung der Paläoanthropologie im 20. Jahrhundert. Von der Narration zur hypothetiko-deduktiven Forschungsdisziplin. In D. Preuß, U. Hoßfeld, & O. Breidbach (Eds.), Anthropologie nach Haeckel (pp. 46–71). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Henke, W., & Tattersall, I. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1–3). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Henke, W. in cooperation with Roth, H., & Simon, C. (1995). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Dmanisi mandible. In R. J. Radlanski, & H. Renz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on dental morphology (Berlin 1995)(pp. 106–110). Berlin: “M” –Marketing Services.
Henke, W., Rothe, H., & Alt, K. W. (1999). Dmanisi and the early Eurasian dispersal of the genus Homo. In H. Ullrich (Ed.), Hominid evolution: Lifestyles and survival strategies (pp. 138–155). Gelsenkirchen, Schwelm: Edition Archaea.
Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag.
Howell, F. C. (1978). Hominidae. In V. J. Maglio & H. N. B. S. Cooke (Eds.), Evolution of African mammals (pp. 154–248). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Howell, F. C. (1986). Variabilité chez Homo erectus et problème de la presence de cette espèce en Europe. L’Anthropologie, 90, 447–481.
Howell, F. C. (1996). Thoughts on the study and interpretation of the human fossil record. In W. E. Meikle, F. C. Howell, & N. G. Jablonski (Eds.), Contemporary issues in human evolution (Wattis symposium series in anthropology, California Academy of Sciences Memoir 21, pp. 1–54). San Francisco.
Howells, W. W. (1980). Homo erectus – Who, when and where: A survey. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 23, 1–23.
Howells, W. W. (1993). Getting here: The story of human evolution. Washington: Compass Press.
Huang, W., Ciochon, R., Yumin, G., Larick, R., Qiren, F., Schwarcz, H., Yonge, C., de Vos, J., & Rink, W. (1995). Early Homo and associated artefacts from Asia. Nature, 378, 275–278.
Hublin, J. J. (1986). Some comments on the diagnostic features of Homo erectus. Anthropos (Brno), 23, 175–187.
Hublin, J. J. (1998). Climatic changes, paleogeography, and the evolution of the Neandertals. In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), Neandertals and modern humans in Western Asia (pp. 295–310). New York: Plenum.
Huxley, T. H. (1863). Zeugnisse für die Stellung des Menschen in der Natur. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
Jacob, T. (1975). Morphology and paleoecology of early man in Java. In R. H. Tuttle (Ed.), Paleoanthropology, morphology and paleoecology (pp. 311–325). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Jelinek, J. (1978). Comparison of Mid-Pleistocene evolutionary process in Europe and in South-East Asia. In Proceedings of the symposium on natural selection (pp. 251–257). Libice 1978, Praha.
Jelínek, J. (1981). Was Homo erectus always Homo sapiens? In D. Ferembach (Ed.), Les Processus de l’Hominisation. L’Evolution Humaine. Les Faits. Les Modalités (pp. 85–89). Paris: Editions CNRS.
Jobling, M. A., Hurles, M. E., & Tyler-Smith, C. (2004). Human evolutionary genetics: Origins, peoples & disease. New York: Garland Publishing.
Johanson, D., & Edgar, B. (2007). Lucy und ihre Kinder (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Johanson, D. C., Masao, F. T., Eck, G. G., White, T. D., Walter, R. C., Kimbel, W. H., Asfaw, B., et al. (1987). New partial skeleton of Homo habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature, 327, 205–209.
Jolly, C. J. (2001). A proper study for mankind: Analogies from the Papionin monkeys and their implications for human evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 116, 177–204.
Keith, A. (1931). New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man. London: Williams and Norgate.
Kennedy, G. E. (1991). On the autapomorphic traits of Homo erectus. Journal of Human Evolution, 20, 355–371.
Kennedy, G. E. (1999). Is “Homo rudolfensis” a valid species? Journal of Human Evolution, 36, 119–121.
King, W. (1864). Reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. Quarterly Journal of Science, 1, 88–97.
Krause, J., Lalueza-Fox, C., Orlando, L., Enard, W., Green, R. E., & Burbano, H. A., Hublin, J.-J., Hänni, C., Fortea, J., de la Rasilla, M., Bertranpetit, J., Rosas, A., Pääbo, S. (2007). The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Current Biology, 17, Report.
Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R. W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., & Pääbo, S. (1997). Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90, 1–20.
Krings, M., Capelli, C., Tschentscher, F., Geisert, H., Meyer, S., von Haeseler, A., Grosschmidt, K., Possnert, G., Paunovic, M., & Pääbo, S. (2000). A view of Neanderthal genetic diversity. Nature Genetics, 26, 144–146.
Lahr, M. M. (1994). The multiregional model of modern human origins: A reassessment of its morphological basis. Journal of Human Evolution, 26, 23–56.
Langbroek, M., & Roebroeks, W. (2000). Extraterrestrial evidence on the age of the hominids from Java. Journal of Human Evolution, 38, 595–600.
Larick, R., & Ciochon, R. L. (1996). The African emergence and early Asian dispersals of the genus Homo. American Scientist, 84, 538–552.
Leakey, L. S. B., Tobias, P. V., & Napier, J. R. (1964). A new species of the genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge. Nature, 2002, 7–9.
Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii.
Mai, L. L., Young Owl, M., & Kersting, M. P. (2005). The Cambridge dictionary of human biology and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mallegni, F., Carnieri, E., Bisconti, M., Tartarelli, G., Ricci, S., Biddittu, I., & Serge, A. (2003). Homo cepranensis sp. nov. and the evolution of African-European Middle Pleistocene hominids. Comptes Rendus Palevolution, 2, 153–159.
Manzi, G. (2001). The earliest diffusion of the genus Homo toward Asia and Europe: A brief overview. In P. V. Tobias, M. A. Raath, J. Moggi-Cecchi, & G. A. Doyle (Eds.), Humanity from African naissance to coming millennia (pp. 117–124). Firenze/Johannesburg: Firenze University Press/Witwatersrand University Press.
Manzi, G. (2004). Human evolution at the Matuyama-Brunhes boundary. Evolutionary Anthropology, 13, 11–24.
Manzi, G., Mallegni, F., & Ascenzi, A. (2001). A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(17), 10011–10016.
Manzi, G., Bruner, E., & Passarello, P. (2003). The one-million-year-old Homo cranium from Bouri (Ethiopia): A reconsideration of its H. erectus affinities. Journal of Human Evolution, 4, 731–736.
Martin, R. D. (1995). Hirngröße und menschlche Evolution. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, 9, 58–57.
Mayr, E. (1969). Principles of systematic zoology. New York: McGraw Hill.
Mayr, E. (1975). Grundlagen der zoologischen Systematik. Hamburg: Paul Parey.
McHenry, H. M. (1996). Homoplasy, clades, and hominid phylogeny. In W. E. Meikle, F. C. Howell, & N. G. Jablonski (Eds.), Contemporary issues in human evolution (Wattis symposium series in anthropology, California Academy of Sciences Memoir 21, pp. 77–92). San Francisco.
Mithen, S. J. (1998). The prehistory of the mind: A search for the origin of art, science and religion. London: Thames & Hudson.
Mithen, S. J. (2007). The network of brain, language, and culture. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1965–2000). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Orlando, L., Darlu, P., Toussaint, M., Bonjean, D., Otte, M., & Hänni, C. (2006). Revisiting Neandertal diversity with a 100, 000 year old mtDNA sequence. Current Biology, 16, R400–R402.
Ovchinnikov, I. V., Götherström, A., Romanova, G. P., Kharitonov, V. M., Lidén, K., & Goodwin, W. (2000). Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature, 404, 490–493.
Pääbo, S., Poinar, H., Serre, D., Jaenicke-Després, V., Hebler, J., Rohland, N., Kuch, M., Krause, J., Vigilant, L., & Hofreiter, M. (2004). Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annual Review of Genetics, 38, 645–679.
Relethford, J. H. (1999). Genetics of modern human origins and diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 1–23.
Relethford, J. H. (2001a). Genetics and the search for modern human origins. New York, Weinheim: Wiley.
Relethford, J. H. (2001b). Ancient DNA and the origins of modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 390–391.
Rightmire, G. P. (1990). The evolution of Homo erectus: Comparative anatomical studies of an extinct human species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rightmire, G. P. (1998). Human evolution in the Middle Pleistocene: The role of Homo heidelbergensis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6, 218–227.
Rightmire, G. P. (2001a). Morphological diversity in Middle Pleistocene Homo. In P. V. Tobias, R. Raath, J. Moggi-Cecchi, & G. Doyle (Eds.), Humanity from African naissance to coming millenia (pp. 135–140). Firenze/Johannesburg: Firenze University Press/Witwatersrand University Press.
Rightmire, G. P. (2001b). Comparison of the Middle Pleistocene hominids from Africa and Asia. In L. Barham & K. Robson-Brown (Eds.), Human roots: Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene (pp. 123–133). Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press.
Rightmire, G. P. (2007). Later Middle Pleistocene Homo. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1695–1716). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rightmire, G. P., Lordkipanidze, D., & Vekua, A. (2005). Anatomical descriptions, comparative studies and evolutionary significance of the hominin skulls from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia. Journal of Human Evolution, 50, 115–141.
Rogers, M. J., Feibel, C. S., & Harris, J. W. K. (1996). Deciphering early hominid land use and behaviour: A multidisciplinary approach from the Lake Turkana basin. In C. C. Magori, C. B. Saanane, & F. Schrenk (Eds.), Four million years of hominid evolution in Africa: Papers in Honour of Dr. Mary Douglas Leakey´s outstanding contribution in palaeoanthropology (Kaupia, Vol. 6, pp. 9–19).
Rothe, H., & Henke, W. (2001). Methoden der Klassifikation und Systematisierung. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften – Biologie in der Schule. Köln/Leipzig: Aulis-Verlag Deubner, 50, 1–7
Rothe, H., & Henke, W. (2006). Stammbäume sind wie Blumensträuße – hübsch anzusehen, doch schnell verwelkt. In D. Preuß, U. Hoßfeld, & O. Breidbach (Eds.), Anthropologie nach Haeckel (pp. 149–183). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Sartono, S. (1981). Pre-Homo erectus population in Java, Indonesia. In X Congreso Union Internacional de Ciencias Prehistoricas y Protohistoricas (pp. 47–86).
Schmitz, R. W., & Thissen, J. (2000). Neandertal: Die Geschichte geht weiter. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Schoetensack, O. (1908). Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg. Engelmann, Leipzig: Ein Beitrag zur Paläontologie des Menschen.
Schott, L. (1977). Der Meinungsstreit um den Skelettfund aus dem Neandertal von 1856. Ausgrabungen und Funde. Archäologische Berichte und Informationen, 22, 235–238.
Schott, L. (1979). Der Skelettfund aus dem Neandertal im Urteil Rudolf Virchows. Biologische Rundschau, 19, 304–309.
Schrenk, F., Bromage, T. G., Betzler, C. G., Ring, U., & Juwayeyi, Y. (1993). Oldest Homo and Pliocene biogeography of the Malawi Rift. Nature, 365, 833–836.
Schrenk, F., Kullmer, O., & Bromage, T. (2007). The earliest putative Homo fossils. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1611–1633). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Schwartz, J. H. (2000a). The origin and identification of species. In M. Schultz, K. Christiansen, H. Greil, W. Henke, A. Kemkes-Grottenthaler, C. Niemitz, H. Rothe, W. Schiefenhövel, H. D. Schmidt, I. Schröder, H. Schutkowski, M. Teschler-Nicola, & U. Wittwer-Backofen (Eds.), Proceedings: 3. Schittstelle Mensch – Umwelt in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft (Kongress der Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, pp. 40–43). Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag.
Schwartz, J. H. (2000b). Taxonomy of the Dmanisi crania. Science, 28, 55–56.
Schwartz, J. H., & Tattersall, I. (2000). What constitutes Homo erectus? Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 19(Suppl), 18–22.
Schwartz, J. H., & Tattersall, I. (2002). The human fossil record. Volume 1: Terminology, craniodental morphology of genus Homo (Europe). New York: Wiley-Liss.
Schwartz, J. H., & Tattersall, I. (2003). The human fossil record. Volume 2: Craniodental morphology of genus Homo (Africa and Asia). New York: Wiley-Liss.
Semaw, S. (2000). The world’s oldest stone artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their implications for understanding stone technology and patterns of human evolution between 2.6–1.5 Million Years ago. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27(12), 1197–1214.
Serre, D., Langaney, A., Chech, M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Paunovic, M., Mennecier, P., & Hofreiter, M. (2004). No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans. PLoS Biology, 2(3), 0313–0317.
Shipman, P., & Storm, P. (2002). Missing links: Eugène Dubois and the origins of paleoanthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 11, 108–116.
Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of animal taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.
Smith, F. (2002). Migrations, radiations and continuity: Patterns in the evolution of Middle and Late Pleistocene humans. In W. C. Hartwig (Ed.), The primate fossil record (pp. 437–456). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, F. H., & Spencer, F. (Eds.). (1984). The origins of modern humans: A world survey of fossil evidence. New York: Alan R. Liss.
Sneath, P. H. A., & Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical taxonomy: The principles and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.
Spencer, F. (1984). The Neandertals and their evolutionary significance: A brief historical survey. In F. H. Smith & F. Spencer (Eds.), The origins of modern humans: A world survey of fossil evidence (pp. 1–49). New York: Alan R. Liss.
Spencer, F. (1990a). The Piltdown papers 1908–1955. Oxford: Natural History Museum, Oxford University Press.
Spencer, F. (1990b). Piltdown – A scientific forgery. Oxford: Natural History Museum, Oxford University Press.
Stent, G. S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227, 84–93.
Stoneking, M., & Cann, R. L. (1989). African origin of human mitochondrial DNA. In P. Mellars & C. B. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution: Behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans (pp. 17–30). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Storch, V., Welsch, U., & Wink, M. (2001). Evolutionsbiologie. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Strait, D. S., & Grine, F. E. (2004). Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: The role of fossil taxa. Journal of Human Evolution, 47, 399–452.
Strait, D. S., Grine, F. E., & Moniz, M. A. (1997). A reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny. Journal of Human Evolution, 32, 1–82.
Stringer, C. B. (1982). Towards a solution of the Neanderthal problem. Journal of Human Evolution, 2, 431–438.
Stringer, C. B. (1986). The credibility of Homo habilis. In B. A. Wood, L. B. Martin, & P. Andrews (Eds.), Major topics in primate and human evolution (pp. 266–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stringer, C. B. (1992). Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In G. Bräuer & F. G. Smith (Eds.), Continuity or replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 9–24). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Stringer, C. B. (1996). Current issues in modern human origins. In W. Meikle, F. C. Howell, & N. Jablonski (Eds.), Contemporary issues in human evolution (Wattis symposium series in anthropology, California Academy of Sciences Memoir 21, pp. 115–134). San Fancisco.
Stringer, C. B. (2001). Modern human origins: Distinguishing the models. African Archaeological Review, 18, 67–75.
Stringer, C. B. (2002). Modern human origins: Progress and prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 357, 563–579.
Stringer, C. B., & Andrews, P. (1988). Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science, 239, 1263–1268.
Stringer, C. B., & Gamble, C. (1993). In search of the Neanderthals: Solving the puzzle of human origins. London: Thames and Hudson.
Susman, R. L. (2008). Brief communication: Evidence bearing on the status of Homo habilis at Olduvai Gorge. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139, 356–361.
Tattersall, I. (1986). Species recognition in human paleontology. Journal of Human Evolution, 15, 165–175.
Tattersall, I. (1995a). The fossil trail. How we know what we think we know about human evolution. New York, San Diego, London: Hartcourt Brace & Company.
Tattersall, I. (1995b). The last Neanderthal: The rise, success, and mysterious extinction of our closest human relatives. New York: Nevraumont Publishing Company.
Tattersall, I. (2000a). Paleoanthropology: The last half-century. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9, 2–16.
Tattersall, I. (2000b). Once we were not alone. Scientific American, 2, 56–63.
Tattersall, I. (2007). Homo ergaster and its contemporaries. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1633–1654). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Tattersall, I., & Schwartz, J. H. (2000). Extinct humans. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Templeton, A. (2002). Out of Africa again and again. Nature, 416, 45–51.
Thorne, A. G., & Wolpoff, M. H. (1981). Regional continuity in Australasian Pleistocene hominid evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 55, 337–349.
Thorne, A. G., & Wolpoff, M. H. (1992). Multiregionaler Ursprung des modernen Menschen. Spektrum der Wissenschaft H, 6, 80–87.
Tobias, P.V. (1989a). The status of Homo habilis in 1987 and some outstanding problems. In G. Giacobini (Ed.), Hominidae (pp. 141–149). Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Human Paleontology, Turin, 1987. Mailand: Jaca Books.
Tobias, P.V. (1989b). A gradual appraisal of Homo habilis. In G. Giacobini (Ed.), Hominidae (pp. 151–154). Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, Turin 1987. Mailand: Jaca Book.
Tobias, P. V. (1991). Olduvai Gorge, vol. 4, Parts V-IX. The skulls, endocasts and teeth of Homo habilis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tobias, P. V., Raath, M. A., Moggi-Cecchi, J., & Doyle, G. A. (Eds.). (2001). Humanity from African naissance to coming millennia. Firenze/Johannesburg: Firenze University Press/Witwatersrand University Press.
Torre, D., Ficcarelli, G., Masini, F., Rook, L., & Sala, B. (1992). Mammal dispersal events in the early Pleistocene of western Europe (Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt 153, pp. 51–58). Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg.
Trinkaus, E., & Shipman, P. (1993). The Neandertals: Changing the image of mankind. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Turner, A., & O’Regan, H. (2007). Zoogeography: Primate and early hominin distribution and migration patterns. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 421–440). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ullrich, H. (1998). Zur Diskussion um die Erstbesiedlung Europas und den ältesten Europäer (Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie,Ethnologie und Urgeschichte Bd. 19, pp. 57–74).
Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Rightmire, G. P., Agustí, J., Ferring, R., Maisuradze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, M., Ponce de Leon, M., Tappen, M., Tvalchrelidze, M., & Zollikofer, C. (2002). A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science, 297, 85–89.
von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1950). Fossil hominids from the Lower Pleistocene of Java. Proceeding of the Ninth International Geological Congress, London 1948, 9, 59–61.
Vrba, E. (1988). Late Pliocene climatic events and hominid evolution. In F. E. Grine (Ed.), Evolutionary history of the “robust” australopithecines (pp. 405–426). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Vrba, E. (2007). Role of environmental stimuli in hominid origins. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1441–1482). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Wägele, J.-W. (2000). Grundlagen der phylogenetischen Systematik. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.
Wagner, G. A. (2007). Chronometric methods in palaeoanthropology. In W. Henke & I. Tattersall (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (Vol. 1, pp. 311–338). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Wagner, G. A., & Beinhauer, K. W. (Eds.). (1997). Homo heidelbergensis von Mauer – Das Auftreten des Menschen in Europa. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter Heidelberg GmbH.
Wagner, G. A., Fezer, U., Hambach, U., & von Koenigswald, W. (1997). Das Alter des Homo heidelbergensis von Mauer. In G. A. Wagner & K. W. Beinhauer (Eds.), Homo heidelbergensis von Mauer – Das Auftreten des Menschen in Europa (pp. 124–143). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter Heidelberg GmbH.
Walker, A. C., & Leakey, R. E. F. (Eds.). (1993). The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Washburn, S. L. (1953). The strategy of physical anthropology. In A. L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology today: An encyclopedic inventory (pp. 714–727). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weidenreich, F. (1940). Some problems dealing with ancient man. American Anthropologist, 42, 375–385.
Weidenreich, F. (1943). The skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A comparative study on a primitive hominid skull. Paleontologia Sinica, Neue Serie D, 10, 1–485.
Weinert, H. (1947). Menschen der Vorzeit. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.
Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.). (2000). Species concept and phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
White, T. D. (2000). A view on the science: Physical anthropology at the millennium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 287–292.
Wiesemüller, B., Rothe, H., & Henke, W. (2003). Einführung in die Phylogenetische Systematik. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Wiley, E. O. (1978). The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Systematic Zoology, 27, 17–26.
Willmann, P. G. (1985). Die Art in Zeit und Raum. Das Artkonzept in der Biologie und Paläontologie. Hamburg: Paul Parey Verlag.
Wilson, A. C., & Cann, R. L. (1992). Afrikanischer Ursprung des modernen Menschen. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, H. 6, 72–79.
Wolpoff, M. H. (1980). Paleoanthropology (1st ed.). New York: Knopf.
Wolpoff, M. H. (1992). Theories of modern human origins. In G. Bräuer & F. Smith (Eds.), Continuity or replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 25–63). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Wolpoff, M. H. (1996-1997). Human evolution (1996-1997th ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., College Custom Series.
Wolpoff, M. H. (1999). Paleoanthropology (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Wolpoff, M. H., & Caspari, R. (1997). Race and human evolution: A fatal attraction. New York: Westview.
Wolpoff, M. H., & Caspari, R. (2000). The many species of humanity. Prezglad Anthropologiczny - Anthropological Review, 63, 2–17.
Wolpoff, M. H., Wu, X., & Thorne, A. G. (1984). Modern Homo sapiens origins: A general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from East Asia. In F. H. Smith & F. Spencer (Eds.), The origins of modern humans: A world survey of the fossil evidence (pp. 411–483). New York: Alan R. Liss.
Wolpoff, M. H., Thorne, A. G., Jelinek, J., & Zhang, Yinyun. (1994a). The case of sinking Homo erectus. 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough! In J. L. Franzen (Ed.), 100 years of Pithecanthropus: The Homo erectus problem (Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Vol. 171, pp. 341–361). Frankfurt am Main: Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg.
Wolpoff, M. H., Thorne, A. G., Smith, F. H., Frayer, D. W., & Pope, G. G. (1994b). Multiregional evolution: A world-wide source for modern human populations. In M. H. Nitecki & D. V. Nitecki (Eds.), Origins of anatomically modern humans (pp. 175–199). New York: Plenum Press.
Wood, B. A. (1992). The origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature, 355, 783–790.
Wood, B. A. (1996a). Human evolution. BioEssays, 18, 945–954.
Wood, B. A. (1996b). Origin and evolution of the Genus Homo. In W. E. Meikle, F. C. Howell, & N. G. Jablonski (Eds.), Contemporrary issues in human evolution (Wattis symposium series in anthropology, California Academy of Sciences Memoir 21, pp. 105–113). San Francisco.
Wood, B. A., & Collard, M. (1999a). The human genus. Science, 284, 65–71.
Wood, B. A., & Collard, M. (1999b). The changing face of genus Homo. Evolutionary Anthropology, 8, 195–207.
Wood, B. A., & Collard, M. (2001). Evolving interpretations of Homo. In P. V. Tobias, R. Raath, J. Moggi-Cecchi, & G. Doyle (Eds.), Humanity from African naissance to coming millenia (pp. 141–146). Firenze/Johannesburg: Firenze University Press/Witwatersrand University Press.
Woodward, A. S. (1921). A new cave man from Rhodesia, South Africa. Nature, 108, 371–372.
Woodward, A. S. (1925). The fossil anthropoid ape from Taung. Nature, 155, 235–236.
Zängl-Kumpf, U. (1990). Hermann Schaaffhausen (1816-1893). Die Entwicklung einer neuen physischen Anthropologie im 19. Frankfurt am Main: Jahrhundert. R.G. Fischer Verlag.
Zilhão, J. (2006). Neandertals and modern mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology, 15, 183–195.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Henke, W., Hardt, T. (2011). The Genus Homo: Origin, Speciation and Dispersal. In: Condemi, S., Weniger, GC. (eds) Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0492-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0492-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0491-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0492-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)