Diagnosing Homo sapiens in the fossil record

Evolution of Homo in the Middle and Late Pleistocene

The Middle and Late Pleistocene is arguably the most interesting period in human evolution. This broad period witnessed the evolution of our own lineage, as well as that of our sister taxon, the Neanderthals, and related Denisovans. It is exceptionally rich in both fossil and archaeological remains, and uniquely benefits from insights gained through molecular approaches, such as paleogenetics and paleoproteomics, that are currently not widely applicable in earlier contexts. This wealth of information paints a highly complex picture, often described as 'the Muddle in the Middle,' defying the common adage that 'more evidence is needed' to resolve it. Here we review competing phylogenetic scenarios and the historical and theoretical developments that shaped our approaches to the fossil record, as well as some of the many remaining open questions associated with this period. We propose that advancing our understanding of this critical time requires more than the addition of data and will necessitate a major shift in our conceptual and theoretical framework.

Conceptual issues in hominin taxonomy: Homo heidelbergensis and an ethnobiological reframing of species

Efforts to name and classify Middle Pleistocene Homo, often referred to as "Homo heidelbergensis" are hampered by confusing patterns of morphology but also by conflicting paleoanthropological ideologies that are embedded in approaches to hominin taxonomy, nomenclature, and the species concept. We deconstruct these issues to show how the field's search for a "real" species relies on strict adherence to pre-Darwinian essentialist naming rules in a post-typological world. We then examine Middle Pleistocene Homo through the framework of ethnobiology, which examines on how Indigenous societies perceive, classify, and name biological organisms. This research reminds us that across human societies, taxonomies function to (1) identify and classify organisms based on consensus pattern recognition and (2) construct a stable nomenclature for effective storage, retrieval and communication of information. Naming Middle Pleistocene Homo as a "real" species cannot be verified with the current data; and separating regional groups into distinct evolutionary lineages creates taxa that are not defined by readily perceptible or universally salient differences. Based on ethnobiological studies of this kind of patterning, referring to these hominins above the level of the species according to their generic category with modifiers (e.g., "European Middle Pleistocene Homo") is consistent with observed human capabilities for cognitive differentiation, is both necessary and sufficient given the current data, and will allow for the most clear communication across ideologies going forward.

Clarifying distinct models of modern human origins in Africa

Accumulating genomic, fossil and archaeological data from Africa have led to a renewed interest in models of modern human origins. However, such discussions are often discipline-specific, with limited integration of evidence across the different fields. Further, geneticists typically require explicit specification of parameters to test competing demographic models, but these have been poorly outlined for some scenarios. Here, we describe four possible models for the origins of Homo sapiens in Africa based on published literature from paleoanthropology and human genetics. We briefly outline expectations for data patterns under each model, with a special focus on genetic data. Additionally, we present schematics for each model, doing our best to qualitatively describe demographic histories for which genetic parameters can be specifically attached. Finally, it is our hope that this perspective provides context for discussions of human origins in other manuscripts presented in this special issue.

Mosaic evolution and the pattern of transitions in the hominin lineage

Humans are uniquely unique, in terms of the extreme differences between them and other living organisms, and the impact they are having on the biosphere. The evolution of humans can be seen, as has been proposed, as one of the major transitions in evolution, on a par with the origins of multicellular organisms or the eukaryotic cell (Maynard Smith & Szathmáry 1997 Major transitions in evolution). Major transitions require the evolution of greater complexity and the emergence of new evolutionary levels or processes. Does human evolution meet these conditions? I explore the diversity of evidence on the nature of transitions in human evolution. Four levels of transition are proposed-baseline, novel taxa, novel adaptive zones and major transitions-and the pattern of human evolution considered in the light of these. The primary conclusions are that changes in human evolution occur continuously and cumulatively; that novel taxa and the appearance of new adaptations are not clustered very tightly in particular periods, although there are three broad transitional phases (Pliocene, Plio-Pleistocene and later Quaternary). Each phase is distinctive, with the first based on ranging and energetics, the second on technology and niche expansion, and the third on cognition and cultural processes. I discuss whether this constitutes a 'major transition' in the context of the evolutionary processes more broadly; the role of behaviour in evolution; and the opportunity provided by the rich genetic, phenotypic (fossil morphology) and behavioural (archaeological) record to examine in detail major transitions and the microevolutionary patterns underlying macroevolutionary change. It is suggested that the evolution of the hominin lineage is consistent with a mosaic pattern of change.This article is part of the themed issue 'Major transitions in human evolution'.

The origin and evolution of Homo sapiens

If we restrict the use of Homo sapiens in the fossil record to specimens which share a significant number of derived features in the skeleton with extant H. sapiens, the origin of our species would be placed in the African late middle Pleistocene, based on fossils such as Omo Kibish 1, Herto 1 and 2, and the Levantine material from Skhul and Qafzeh. However, genetic data suggest that we and our sister species Homo neanderthalensis shared a last common ancestor in the middle Pleistocene approximately 400-700 ka, which is at least 200 000 years earlier than the species origin indicated from the fossils already mentioned. Thus, it is likely that the African fossil record will document early members of the sapiens lineage showing only some of the derived features of late members of the lineage. On that basis, I argue that human fossils such as those from Jebel Irhoud, Florisbad, Eliye Springs and Omo Kibish 2 do represent early members of the species, but variation across the African later middle Pleistocene/early Middle Stone Age fossils shows that there was not a simple linear progression towards later sapiens morphology, and there was chronological overlap between different 'archaic' and 'modern' morphs. Even in the late Pleistocene within and outside Africa, we find H. sapiens specimens which are clearly outside the range of Holocene members of the species, showing the complexity of recent human evolution. The impact on species recognition of late Pleistocene gene flow between the lineages of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans is also discussed, and finally, I reconsider the nature of the middle Pleistocene ancestor of these lineages, based on recent morphological and genetic data.This article is part of the themed issue 'Major transitions in human evolution'.

The Omo-Kibish I pelvis

Omo-Kibish I (Omo I) from southern Ethiopia is the oldest anatomically modern Homo sapiens skeleton currently known (196 ± 5 ka). A partial hipbone (os coxae) of Omo I was recovered more than 30 years after the first portion of the skeleton was recovered, a find which is significant because human pelves can be informative about an individual's sex, age-at-death, body size, obstetrics and parturition, and trunk morphology. Recent human pelves are distinct from earlier Pleistocene Homo spp. pelves because they are mediolaterally narrower in bispinous breadth, have more vertically oriented ilia, lack a well-developed iliac pillar, and have distinct pubic morphology. The pelvis of Omo I provides an opportunity to test whether the earliest modern humans had the pelvic morphology characteristic of modern humans today and to shed light onto the paleobiology of the earliest humans. Here, we formally describe the preservation and morphology of the Omo I hipbone, and quantitatively and qualitatively compare the hipbone to recent humans and relevant fossil Homo. The Omo I hipbone is modern human in appearance, displaying a moderate iliac tubercle (suggesting a reduced iliac pillar) and an ilium that is not as laterally flaring as earlier Homo. Among those examined in this study, the Omo I ischium is most similar in shape to (but substantially larger than) that of recent Sudanese people. Omo I has features that suggest this skeleton belonged to a female. The stature estimates in this study were derived from multiple bones from the upper and lower part of the body, and suggest that there may be differences in the upper and lower limb proportions of the earliest modern humans compared to recent humans. The large size and robusticity of the Omo I pelvis is in agreement with other studies that have found that modern human reduction in postcranial robusticity occurred later in our evolutionary history.