The Humans That Lived Before Us

Summary

The script delves into the early Pleistocene Epoch, exploring the evolutionary journey of hominins, particularly Homo habilis. It discusses the debate over whether Homo habilis should be classified within the Homo genus due to its mix of primitive and advanced traits, such as tool use and bipedalism. The narrative also touches on the discovery of Australopithecus sediba and Homo rudolfensis, and the challenges in defining what it means to be 'human'. It highlights the complexity of human evolution, with Homo erectus emerging as an indisputable member of the Homo genus, contrasting with the taxonomic uncertainty surrounding Homo habilis.

Takeaways

• 🕵️‍♂️ The early Pleistocene Epoch, from about 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago, was a significant period for hominin evolution in southern and eastern Africa.
• 🧠 Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man', was one of the early hominins with a slightly larger brain and smaller teeth compared to australopithecines, and is known for possibly making and using stone tools.
• 🤔 The classification of Homo habilis within the genus Homo has been debated due to the discovery of similar traits in other hominin species like australopithecines.
• 🌳 The definition of what constitutes a member of the genus Homo has evolved over time, with criteria such as bipedalism, brain size, and tool use being reconsidered.
• 🦶 The Laetoli footprints and Lucy's skeleton provided evidence that upright walking and certain limb proportions were not exclusive to Homo, complicating the definition of the genus.
• 🧬 Australopithecus sediba and Homo rudolfensis are other hominin species that have been considered for inclusion in the genus Homo due to their Homo-like traits.
• 🌏 Homo erectus is recognized as the first member of the genus Homo to have migrated out of Africa, with evidence found as far as China and Indonesia.
• 🏞️ The variation in fossils found at Dmanisi, Georgia, has led some researchers to suggest that early Homo species might be better classified as a single species, Homo erectus.
• 🔍 The search for defining features of the genus Homo continues, with new criteria such as tooth size and developmental pace being considered.
• 🌿 The debate over the classification of Homo habilis reflects the broader challenges in defining the Homo genus and what it means to be 'human' in the context of our evolutionary history.

Q & A

What is the significance of the early Pleistocene Epoch for hominins?

The early Pleistocene Epoch, from about 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago, was a period of significant evolutionary development for hominins, with various branches flourishing across southern and eastern Africa.

What are the key features of Homo habilis?

Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man,' was a hominin species characterized by a height of over a meter, a slightly larger brain, smaller teeth compared to australopithecines, and the ability to make and use stone tools.

Why is the classification of Homo habilis within the genus Homo debated?

The classification of Homo habilis within the genus Homo is debated because subsequent discoveries of similar traits in other hominin species, such as australopithecines, have blurred the distinctiveness of Homo habilis, leading to questions about its unique place within the genus.

What is the importance of the Laetoli footprints in understanding hominin evolution?

The Laetoli footprints, dating back more than a million years, provide evidence that hominins were bipedal before Homo habilis, challenging the notion that bipedalism was exclusive to the genus Homo.

What are lifestyle adaptations and how do they relate to defining the genus Homo?

Lifestyle adaptations refer to features linked to how a hominin lived, such as diet, mobility, and habitat. They are considered in defining the genus Homo because they reflect the evolutionary changes in hominin behavior and ecology.

What criteria were proposed for a hominin to be classified within the genus Homo?

Criteria proposed for classification within Homo included an adult brain size greater than 600 cubic centimeters, limb proportions similar to Homo sapiens, the use of language, and the manufacture and use of stone tools.

Why is the specimen KNM-ER 1813 significant in the discussion about Homo habilis?

The specimen KNM-ER 1813, with a cranial capacity of only 510 ccs, challenges the brain size criterion for genus Homo, as it is smaller than the proposed 600cc threshold.

Who are some other hominin species that lived alongside Homo habilis during the early Pleistocene?

Other hominin species that lived alongside Homo habilis include Australopithecus sediba and Homo rudolfensis, both of which exhibit traits that blur the lines of classification within the genus Homo.

What is the significance of Homo erectus in the human evolutionary timeline?

Homo erectus is significant as it is one of the first indisputable members of the genus Homo, with a wide geographical distribution and traits much more similar to modern humans, including a larger brain and modern human-like proportions.

What is the current status of Homo habilis in terms of its classification within the genus Homo?

Homo habilis remains a taxon in limbo, with no consensus on its classification. Some experts propose it be reclassified within Australopithecus, while others suggest it deserves its own genus.

What new criteria are being considered for defining the genus Homo?

New criteria being considered for defining the genus Homo include tooth size, which may indicate diet quality and food preparation, and the pace of development, which is reflected in the extended childhood and adolescence periods in modern humans.

Outlines

00:00

🕵️‍♂️ The Evolutionary Journey of Homo Habilis

This paragraph delves into the early Pleistocene Epoch, highlighting the evolutionary developments of hominins in Africa. Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man,' is introduced as a species with a larger brain and smaller teeth compared to australopithecines, yet retaining some basal traits like longer arms. The discovery of Homo habilis by Louis and Mary Leakey in the 1960s and the subsequent debate over its classification within the genus Homo are discussed. The paragraph also touches on the broader implications for defining what it means to be human, considering the lack of a clear definition and the challenges in categorizing early hominin species.

05:00

🧠 The Taxonomic Conundrum of Homo Habilis

The second paragraph focuses on the challenges in classifying Homo habilis due to its mix of primitive and derived traits. It discusses the discovery of other hominin species like Australopithecus afarensis and Homo rudolfensis, which also exhibit traits previously thought to be unique to Homo. The paragraph explores the criteria used to define the genus Homo, such as brain size, limb proportions, language use, and tool-making, and how these criteria have been complicated by new fossil discoveries. It also mentions Homo erectus as a clear member of the genus, contrasting it with the uncertain status of Homo habilis, which remains a subject of debate among paleoanthropologists.

10:03

🔍 Redefining the Human Genus in Light of New Discoveries

The final paragraph addresses the evolving criteria for defining the genus Homo in the face of new hominin fossil discoveries. It suggests that traditional markers like brain size and bipedalism are no longer sufficient for classification, as they are found in species outside the genus. The paragraph introduces new potential criteria such as tooth size and developmental pace, which could provide fresh insights into what constitutes 'human.' It also mentions the suggestion to reevaluate the entire hominin classification system, emphasizing the ongoing debate and the need for a more comprehensive understanding of our evolutionary history.

Keywords

💡Pleistocene Epoch

The Pleistocene Epoch is a geological time period that lasted from about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago. It is significant for understanding human evolution as it covers the era when many hominin species, including early Homo, emerged and developed. The script refers to the early Pleistocene as a time of evolutionary flourishing for hominins across southern and eastern Africa, setting the stage for the discussion of various hominin species.

💡Hominins

Hominins are members of the taxonomic family Hominidae, which includes modern humans, extinct human species, and all extinct ancestors more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees. The script uses the term to discuss the group of human ancestors that are the focus of the video, emphasizing their evolutionary significance and diversity during the Pleistocene Epoch.

💡Homo habilis

Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man,' is an early species of the genus Homo. The script describes it as having a slightly larger brain and smaller teeth than its australopithecine relatives, and it is noted for possibly being the first to make and use stone tools. This species is central to the video's exploration of what characteristics define membership in the genus Homo.

💡Australopithecines

Australopithecines are an extinct group of hominins that lived in Africa between approximately 4 million and 2 million years ago. The script mentions them as having similar brain sizes and limb proportions to Homo habilis, which complicates the classification of Homo habilis. The discovery of australopithecines with traits previously thought to be unique to Homo has challenged traditional definitions of the genus.

💡Bipedalism

Bipedalism refers to the ability to walk upright on two legs, a key characteristic that distinguishes humans from other primates. The script discusses bipedalism as one of the traits that were once used to define the genus Homo, noting that the discovery of australopithecines also capable of bipedalism has led to a reevaluation of this criterion.

💡Lifestyle Adaptations

Lifestyle adaptations are features linked to how a hominin lived its life, including diet, mobility, and habitat. The script suggests that these adaptations, rather than just physical traits, should be considered in defining the genus Homo. For instance, the increased brain size in Homo is linked to a higher-quality diet, reflecting the importance of lifestyle in human evolution.

💡Homo erectus

Homo erectus is an extinct species of hominin that lived from approximately 1.9 million to 143,000 years ago. The script positions Homo erectus as an indisputable member of the genus Homo due to its modern human-like proportions, potential for long-distance running, and larger brains compared to earlier species. It is also noted for being the first hominin species with evidence of existence outside Africa.

💡Taxonomy

Taxonomy is the scientific classification of organisms into groups based on shared characteristics. The script discusses the challenges in classifying Homo habilis and other early hominins, highlighting the complexities and ongoing debates in the field of paleoanthropology. The video underscores the fluid nature of taxonomy as new discoveries prompt revisions in our understanding of human evolution.

💡Fossil Record

The fossil record consists of all preserved remains and traces of past life found in the Earth's crust. The script uses the fossil record as a primary source of evidence for understanding the evolution of hominins, including the debate over the classification of Homo habilis. The video emphasizes the importance of fossils in reconstructing the history of human ancestors.

💡Homo rudolfensis

Homo rudolfensis is another early hominin species mentioned in the script, known from fossils found in Eastern Africa. Initially classified as a large specimen of Homo habilis, further studies led to its recognition as a distinct species due to its larger brain and unique dental features. The script uses Homo rudolfensis as an example of the ongoing taxonomic debates and the evolving criteria for genus classification.

💡Morphological Variation

Morphological variation refers to the differences in form or structure among individuals within a species or between related species. The script discusses the variation observed in early Homo fossils, such as those from the Dmanisi site, which has led to proposals to reclassify various early hominins under a single species, Homo erectus. This concept is central to the video's exploration of the challenges in defining and categorizing early human ancestors.

Highlights

In the early Pleistocene Epoch, hominins were flourishing in Africa, marking an exciting period in human evolution.

Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man', was identified for its potential tool-making abilities.

The discovery of Homo habilis challenged the traditional definitions of the genus Homo.

Fossils of australopithecines, similar to Homo habilis, questioned its unique place in human evolution.

Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis, provided evidence that bipedalism wasn't exclusive to Homo.

The Laetoli footprints suggested bipedalism predated Homo habilis by over a million years.

Lifestyle adaptations, rather than physical traits, were considered for defining the genus Homo.

Criteria for genus Homo membership included brain size, limb proportions, language use, and tool-making.

Homo habilis's cranial capacity and limb proportions did not align with the proposed criteria for Homo.

The capability for language in Homo habilis remains speculative due to the limitations of the fossil record.

Australopithecus sediba was identified with Homo-like traits, complicating the genus classification.

Homo rudolfensis was considered a possible member of the genus Homo due to its large brain size.

Homo erectus is recognized as the first indisputable member of the genus Homo, with a wide geographical range.

The Dmanisi site in Georgia showed variation among early Homo fossils, challenging species distinctions.

Homo habilis remains a taxonomically disputed species, with proposals to reclassify it or create a new genus.

New criteria for defining the genus Homo are being explored, such as tooth size and developmental pace.

Some experts suggest a complete reevaluation of the hominin classification system.

The definition of our genus is still debated, with Homo habilis's status remaining uncertain.

Transcripts

For about a million years in the early Pleistocene Epoch -- from about 2.4 million to 1.4 million

years ago -- it was a really exciting time to be a hominin.

Hominins, you’ll recall, are the group of human ancestors that are more closely related

to us than to chimps and bonobos.

During this million-year stretch, different branches of our evolutionary tree were flourishing

all over southern and eastern Africa.

And if we were to zoom in on the earliest part of this million years, we’d encounter

a familiar face.

Or at least a somewhat familiar face: the face of Homo habilis.

It stood just over a meter tall, and had a slightly larger brain and smaller teeth than

its earlier relatives, the australopithecines.

But it still had longer arms and a protruding lower face, traits that are usually considered

more basal in the hominin lineage.

And yet!

This ancestor probably made and used stone tools!

In fact, Homo habilis means “handy man,” and its discoverers gave it that name because

they thought that it was responsible for the many tools that had been found near its remains.

But, does this hominin really belong in our genus, the genus Homo?

Was it more like us than its earlier ancestors?

Over the last fifty years or so, the human family tree has really filled out.

We’ve discovered all kinds of new fossils of our ancestors and relatives, like australopithecines

that have about the same brain size and limb proportions as Homo habilis.

And this has led some researchers to question whether Homo habilis is really a member of

our genus at all.

As more and more fossil ancestors have been found, our genus has become more and more

inclusive, incorporating more members that look less like us, Homo sapiens.

And this is an important problem to think about.

Because, there's some consensus about who belongs in our immediate human family -- like

us, neanderthals, and even the ancient, globe-traveling hominin Homo erectus.

They’re all agreed to be clear-cut members of the genus Homo.

But beyond them, there are lots ancestors for whom we can’t find a home.

And there is no official definition of what constitutes a human, either, whether that

means being a member of our genus, or our species, or just being able to walk upright

and make tools.

So by getting to know these other hominins -- the ones who came before us, the neanderthals,

and our other contemporaries -- we can start to answer some big, interesting, and difficult

questions …

….questions about what it essentially means to be human.

When the first fossils of Homo habilis were found by Louis and Mary Leakey’s team in

the 1960s, they had a difficult choice to make:

Were these the remains of australopithecines?

Or were they in fact the earliest known members of our own genus, Homo?

Traditionally, defining who belongs in our genus has come down to which traits are considered

“uniquely” human.

And when the Leakeys were pondering Homo habilis, they used a definition of Homo from 1955,

which said that to be a member of the genus, you had to have some number of features in

common with the three members of Homo known at the time: Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and

the Neanderthals.

The Leakeys decided that Homo habilis shared three important traits with the other members

of our genus: It had an upright posture; it was bipedal, and it had the manual dexterity

to make tools.

And, sure, Homo habilis had those three things.

But in the decade after Homo habilis was found, new discoveries of other human ancestors were

made in the same parts of Africa, and they had these traits, too.

And these new finds were all of various australopithecines, which were inarguably not part of our genus.

The most of famous of these discoveries is the specimen known as Lucy.

Unearthed at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1974, she was one of the most complete specimens of

Australopithecus afarensis ever found.

And she gave clear evidence of an upright posture, like having thigh bones that angled

inward toward the knee and a more human-like pelvis.

Then, four years later, a set of fossilized footprints were found in Tanzania.

Known as the Laetoli footprints, they were probably made by Australopithecus afarensis,

too -- again showing that hominins were walking on two feet more than a million years before

Homo habilis was around.

So if walking upright was not exclusive to our genus, then the definition of our genus

had to change.

Instead of just physical traits, the thinking then turned toward lifestyle adaptations as

a way of defining who belonged in our group.

Lifestyle adaptations are features that are linked to how a hominin lived its life, like

what it ate, how it got around, and where it lived.

For example, the increased brain size in members of Homo was thought to be linked to a higher-quality

diet, because being able to consume more calories more efficiently has allowed for larger brains.

And some researchers arrived at four specific lifestyle adaptations that they thought might

qualify a hominin for entry into the genus Homo.

Those adaptations included: an adult brain size greater than 600 cubic centimeters; limb

proportions similar to ours, with long legs compared to our arms; the use of language;

and the manufacture and use of stone tools.

But still, these things only kind of applied to Homo habilis.

Because one of the most famous and complete Homo habilis skulls, a specimen known as KNM-ER

1813, had a cranial capacity of only 510 ccs.

Meanwhile, a big male specimen of Australopithecus afarensis was found to have had limb proportions

like those of early members of Homo -- but it lived 3.58 million years ago, way before

Homo habilis appeared on the scene.

And the capability for language can really only be inferred from the fossil record.

It’s pretty hard to tell whether Homo habilis or any ancestor that lived millions of years

ago was able to speak.

That just leaves stone tools.

And while researchers in the 1960s were pretty convinced that Homo habilis was the maker

of the tools at Olduvai Gorge, we now know that australopithecines could likely make

stone tools, too.

So, let’s look at our group another way.

Instead of talking about who might not belong to our genus, let’s consider who might.

Who were those other members of our genus that lived alongside Homo habilis during that

exciting, million-year span in Africa?

And what can they tell us about the origin of the Homo genus?

Well, starting about 1.98 million years ago in South Africa, there lived an australopithecine

with distinctly Homo-like traits.

Known from several relatively complete skeletons, it was given the name in 2010 of Australopithecus

sediba.

Its discoverers placed it in Australopithecus because of its small brain and long arms,

but they also noted that it had small molars and premolars, and facial features that were

similar to other Homo specimens.

So these researchers actually think that Australopithecus sediba might be more closely related to our

genus than other australopithecines are, but other experts think it’s too recent in age.

Another candidate for inclusion?

Homo rudolfensis

It’s been found at sites dating back 1.8 to 1.9 million years ago in Eastern Africa.

The best fossil of this species is known as KNM-ER-1470, and when it was discovered in

1972, it was originally classified as a large specimen of Homo habilis.

However in 1986 and again in 1992, further studies found that its bigger brain, longer

face, and larger premolars and canines made it too different from Homo habilis to be a

member of that species.

But it was still assigned to our genus, because of its big brain.

At 775 cubic centimeters, it was well over the classic 600cc cut-off.

And finally we come to the first indisputable member of our genus, and one of the most successful

and widespread: Homo erectus.

It lived from 1.9 million to just 143,000 years ago!

The first Homo erectus fossils were found in 1891, and some anthropologists later split

this species into two - with Homo erectus including the later African and Asian fossils,

and the earlier African fossils being filed under Homo ergaster.

And experts generally agree that Homo erectus is definitely a member of our genus.

These hominins had modern human-like proportions, were potentially capable of long-distance

running, and generally had much smaller molars and much larger brains than their predecessors.

In other words, they were a lot more like us than any of the other species I’ve mentioned

so far.

Homo erectus is also the first species that we have fossil evidence for outside of Africa.

They made it as far as China and Indonesia, but their initial foray seems to have landed

them in the Republic of Georgia, at a site called Dmanisi that dates to about 1.77 million

years ago.

And the interesting thing about that site is that there’s a lot of variation among

the specimens found there.

Some individuals from Dmanisi had the unmistakable brow ridge of Homo erectus, but their brains

were smaller than 600 ccs -- the classic cut-off for inclusion in the genus Homo.

In fact, there’s so much variation in the Georgian fossils that their discoverers made

a case in 2013 for taking all of the other early Homo fossils -- including the ones assigned

to Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis -- and putting them in Homo erectus, lumping everything

together as a single species.

They argue that if the fossils from a single site can show as much variation as we find

between species, then all of those early groups might as well be considered the same species.

But of course, other experts disagree.

They don’t think overall cranial shape is enough to distinguish one species from another.

To them, the devil is in the differing morphological details of each skull.

Now, with all this in mind, let’s go back to Homo habilis.

Where does it belong?

Well, it doesn’t really seem to fit anyone’s definition of our genus.

And the best argument for keeping it in is just that taking it out would require redefining

what it means to be a member, which would be a major taxonomic undertaking.

Some experts have proposed lumping habilis into the genus Australopithecus.

Others say it’s neither Homo nor Australopithecus and that it deserves its own new genus.

So far, no single opinion has won out.

Homo habilis remains a taxon in limbo.

Ultimately, what defines our genus comes down to how much variation in morphology, time,

and space we’re willing to include in the group we call home.

In the past, an increase in brain size, a bipedal gait, human-like limb proportions,

and tool use seemed to have been enough for inclusion.

Those are the things that we thought made us members of the same genus.

But as we’ve discovered more and more hominin fossils, our family tree has become more complicated,

rather than less.

So now, the latest research is suggesting totally new ways to define our lineage.

One new idea for a defining feature of our genus?

Tooth size!

Smaller teeth generally indicate a higher quality diet and the ability to prepare food

with tools, instead of having to chew tough foods for a long time.

Another possible criterion is the pace of our development.

We modern humans have longer periods of childhood and adolescence compared to our closest ape

relatives, because we need that time to grow our large brains and use them to learn.

And we can track these growth patterns in fossils by studying microscopic features of

teeth.

And as recently as 2015, some experts have suggested that we should scrap the whole list

of hominins altogether and just start from scratch.

They say we should step back and look at the totality of the fossil record with fresh eyes

to decide what traits we think are important for being “human.”

As it stands, there’s still no single way to define our genus.

Mostly it happens by comparison: Is a new fossil more like what we’ve called Homo

in the past or is it more like an australopithecine?

And the jury’s still out on Homo habilis, the species that started all the trouble in

the first place.

But if anything, the trouble really began back in the Early Pleistocene, during that

exciting million years or so when this group of hominins first started to flourish.

And it may be in the fossils from that time -- perhaps in fossils we haven’t found yet

-- that will help us better answer the question of who belongs to our very exclusive group.

Thanks as always, and extra big thanks to our current Eontologists, Jake Hart, Jon Ivy,

John Davison Ng and STEVE!

If you’d like to join them and our other patrons in supporting what we do here, then

go to patreon.com/eons and make your pledge!

Now, what do you want to learn about?

Leave us a comment, and don’t forget to go to youtube.com/eons and subscribe.