Skip to main content

Human Origins, a short history - Sarah Wild ***

It's inevitable that us humans have a distinct interest in where we come from as a species, and in this book Sarah Wild takes us through the latest state of knowledge on the origin of our species and of the various extinct species that broadly fall within the 'hominin' descriptor.

There's plenty of compact information here, with occasional boxes filling in basics, such as how fossils form and what a hominin is. Some of the facts are eminently quotable - my favourite was that of all the species mentioned, only Homo sapiens has a chin (not sure what this says about chinless wonders). I particularly liked the chapters on 'the first sapiens' - what we know about the earliest members of our species - and on 'the big questions', notably what happened to all the other related-ish species and the ways in which we are still evolving.

Unfortunately, though, the book does suffer from Rutherford stamp collecting syndrome. The great physicist commented (roughly) that all science is either physics or stamp collecting - suggesting that other scientific disciplines focus too much on collecting and collating data, where physics is more about deducing laws and explanation of phenomena (hence far more interesting). Wild gives us a plethora of data and species, with many different hominins named, and their distinguishing features reeled off. What's missing is a sense of storytelling and narrative - it's just too fact-heavy.

Just to give one example: in a section labelled 'Homo mysteries', Wild introduced the famous 'hobbit' of the Indonesian island of Flores. We hear about where the remains were found, the excavations, the species' strange mix of characteristics and the debate over whether the remains were of a new species or of individuals with birth defects. But nowhere is there a mention of the best bit of the story (appearing in Henry Gee's The Accidental Species), that the discoverers originally suggested naming the species Homo florianus, but hastily renamed it Homo floresiensis when they discovered their original name means a flowery part of the anatomy. It might be trivial, but a story like this adds human interest. Similarly we hear very little other about the discoverers than their names - ironically, it would have been great to give more human context.

I was also uncomfortable with Wild's use of the word 'ancestor'. As far as I'm concerned, an ancestor is in a species' direct lineage. But at one point we are told 'For many years [Ardipithecus ramidus] was the oldest human ancestor we knew of.' Yet, as we are correctly told some pages later, 'We do not know how the human lineage evolved from early hominins' - all we have is fragments of different earlier hominins, many of which will not be our ancestors, and we have no way of being clear when dealing with specimens too old for genetic identifiers.

The book was absolutely fine as a textbook light, and I was happy to endorse it as such. If you need to get information about the context of human evolution, it will give a good collection of facts (if we overlook the ancestor thing) - but it hasn't got the readability of good popular science.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on