What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding Life
Understanding Human Evolution
Human life, and how we came to be, is one of the greatest scientific and philosophical questions of our time. This compact and accessible book presents a modern view of human evolution. Written by a leading authority, it lucidly and engagingly explains not only the evolutionary process, but the technologies currently used to unravel the evolutionary past and emergence of Homo sapiens. By separating the history of palaeoanthropology from current interpretation of the human fossil record, it lays numerous misconceptions to rest, and demonstrates that human evolution has been far from the linear struggle from primitiveness to perfection that we've been led to believe. It also presents a coherent scenario for how Homo sapiens contrived to cross a formidable cognitive barrier to become an extraordinary and unprecedented thinking creature. Elegantly illustrated, Understanding Human Evolution is for anyone interested in the complex and tangled story of how we came to be.
208 pages, Paperback
Published July 28, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 9, 2026
Starting with social Darwinists, a lot of people gave the phrase “survival of the fittest” a meaning that it didn’t originally have. In fact, “fittest” is as likely to be beautiful plumage as physical strength. It is primarily about success in being able to reproduce and survive, and in the world of nature, that can be a host of different things. It is primarily based on passing the genes of a species, although competition can also exist between different members of a species, and between different species. One has to be pretty ignorant today to think that “fittest” is in any way associated with skin color. Africa, where humans began, has the largest amount of genetic diversity, and today we know that skin color is only an adaptation for local climate.
When many of us started seeing socialism as an alternative, we were inevitably told that it (and opposition to war) were against human nature! How humans could even have evolved based on selfishness is a bizarre notion. In fact, the founder of American anthropology, Lewis H. Morgan, in Ancient Society Or, Researches In The Lines Of Human Progress From Savagery, Through Barbarism To Civilization showed that humanity started out in a primitive communist, matriarchal society, although since then bourgeois anthropologists have worked overtime to try to hide these facts. And this is not only because Frederick Engels took the book as his starting point in writing The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. But archeology is a branch of anthropology that can’t wander too far from science.
Ian Tattersall writes of our ancestors that,
“Living as they did in an era of highly unstable environments during which local populations were regularly cut off from each other and subsequently recombined, they lived in a time that was ideal for the development Living as they did in an era of highly unstable environments during which local populations were regularly cut off from each other and subsequently recombined, they lived in a time that was ideal for the development of local variants. That in turn may explain the variety of morphologies currently included under the ecumenical rubric of Homo ergaster. It might also, conceivably, help explain the rapid increase in average brain size in the genus Homo, as the result of competition among species (yet to be acknowledged) in which an intuitive style of cognition evolved that scaled up in sophistication with increasing brain size. And it is a good bet that it helps account for the unusual prosociality of hominins, which is matched nowhere better than among those other social carnivores, dogs." [Which, of course, were wolves we domesticated].
I had previously read two books by Ian Tattersall, Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins and The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack: and Other Cautionary Tales from Human Evolution both written more for a mass audience than this book. I also got to see some of his fine work in displays in the American Museum of Natural History.
Tattersall writes, close to summing up,
"Nonetheless, in our imperfect human world, most of us find our cognitive deficiencies to be a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the enjoyment of the many hugely positive aspects of being human: the abilities, for example, to experience love, joy, insight, inspiration, and exhilaration. And it is certainly satisfying to be able to reject the notion that we are simply soulless rational automatons. On the flip side, however, the rather random and undirected nature of the process by which we got here means that we cannot, as some would have us believe, assuage our consciences by blaming our failings and bad decisions on hard-wired responses that were originally developed to deal with a now-vanished ‘environment of evolutionary adaptation.’ We are not the hapless victims of atavistic impulse: instead, we really do have choices, and we truly are individually responsible for what we do.”
In my view, since the end of primitive communism, we have been living in class society, and some are much more responsible than others. Since biological evolution is simply about adaptation to local environment, we can’t expect it to solve our problems. These must be solved by social evolution, including revolutions. Good sources to start with are, the previously mentioned The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Labor, Nature, and the Evolution of Humanity: The Long View of History, and other works by Evelyn Reed.
When many of us started seeing socialism as an alternative, we were inevitably told that it (and opposition to war) were against human nature! How humans could even have evolved based on selfishness is a bizarre notion. In fact, the founder of American anthropology, Lewis H. Morgan, in Ancient Society Or, Researches In The Lines Of Human Progress From Savagery, Through Barbarism To Civilization showed that humanity started out in a primitive communist, matriarchal society, although since then bourgeois anthropologists have worked overtime to try to hide these facts. And this is not only because Frederick Engels took the book as his starting point in writing The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. But archeology is a branch of anthropology that can’t wander too far from science.
Ian Tattersall writes of our ancestors that,
“Living as they did in an era of highly unstable environments during which local populations were regularly cut off from each other and subsequently recombined, they lived in a time that was ideal for the development Living as they did in an era of highly unstable environments during which local populations were regularly cut off from each other and subsequently recombined, they lived in a time that was ideal for the development of local variants. That in turn may explain the variety of morphologies currently included under the ecumenical rubric of Homo ergaster. It might also, conceivably, help explain the rapid increase in average brain size in the genus Homo, as the result of competition among species (yet to be acknowledged) in which an intuitive style of cognition evolved that scaled up in sophistication with increasing brain size. And it is a good bet that it helps account for the unusual prosociality of hominins, which is matched nowhere better than among those other social carnivores, dogs." [Which, of course, were wolves we domesticated].
I had previously read two books by Ian Tattersall, Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins and The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack: and Other Cautionary Tales from Human Evolution both written more for a mass audience than this book. I also got to see some of his fine work in displays in the American Museum of Natural History.
Tattersall writes, close to summing up,
"Nonetheless, in our imperfect human world, most of us find our cognitive deficiencies to be a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the enjoyment of the many hugely positive aspects of being human: the abilities, for example, to experience love, joy, insight, inspiration, and exhilaration. And it is certainly satisfying to be able to reject the notion that we are simply soulless rational automatons. On the flip side, however, the rather random and undirected nature of the process by which we got here means that we cannot, as some would have us believe, assuage our consciences by blaming our failings and bad decisions on hard-wired responses that were originally developed to deal with a now-vanished ‘environment of evolutionary adaptation.’ We are not the hapless victims of atavistic impulse: instead, we really do have choices, and we truly are individually responsible for what we do.”
In my view, since the end of primitive communism, we have been living in class society, and some are much more responsible than others. Since biological evolution is simply about adaptation to local environment, we can’t expect it to solve our problems. These must be solved by social evolution, including revolutions. Good sources to start with are, the previously mentioned The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Labor, Nature, and the Evolution of Humanity: The Long View of History, and other works by Evelyn Reed.
May 13, 2026
This excellent book gives a very useful overview of human evolution, including:
(1) The methods used by scientists try to find out the facts. (Some of this part of the book gets rather technical.)
(2) The history of the scientific search for knowledge of human origins.
(3) The current state of knowledge, and the current debates and controversies. (Controversies based on conflicting interpretations of the genetic and fossil evidence.)
In this review, I am just going to focus on Tattersall’s views on two major current debates about the origins of modern Homo sapiens.
Firstly, there is the debate about where H. sapiens originated. To follow this debate, it is necessary to know that there are two types of evolution. Firstly, there is anagenesis. This is where there are evolutionary changes WITHIN a species over time. For example, if the environment (physical, biological or climatic) of an entire species gradually changes, then natural selection could lead to the whole species itself gradually changing.
The other type of evolution is cladogenesis. This is where a new species branches off from an existing one. This speciation process usually takes place when a peripheral population of a species becomes geographically isolated. When this happens, this isolated population can evolve relatively rapidly (in geological terms) into a new species. (This view is compatible with Gould and Eldredge’s theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium”.)
There is a currently influential theory which says that modern H. sapiens did not originate in one place. This theory is called African Multiregionalism or the Pan-African Network model. It says that there were semi-separated populations of a pre-sapiens species (probably Homo heidelbergensis) spread right across Africa. Each population developed slightly different features, but they occasionally interbred. When this happened it led to modern H. sapiens, which is therefore a composite, rather than a result of speciation in one place. This means, in effect, that H. sapiens appeared as a result of anagenesis, not cladogenesis, and that there is really no distinct boundary between H. sapiens and H. heidelbergensis. (Taken to its logical conclusion, it seems to me that it could end up with seeing all the species in the Homo genus as just one big species developing via anagenesis.)
Although Tattersall does not specifically mention this “Network” theory in this particular book, he certainly puts forward a view which totally contradicts the theory. Tattersall opts instead for the importance of cladogenesis, with H. sapiens first appearing in an isolated population and then spreading across Africa to replace other Homo species – quite possibly with some interbreeding with them, as there was later with Neanderthals after H. sapiens had spread out of Africa, because speciation is a process and it takes time for total reproductive isolation to develop. Personally, I’m only an interested amateur, but I find Tattersall’s view more convincing than the Network/African Multiregionalism model.
The second area of debate which Tattersall is involved in relates to when language and modern human consciousness first developed. Some scientists have in the past claimed that in the history of our own species (Homo sapiens) there was a “creative explosion” in Europe about 40,000 years ago (with the appearance of cave art etc), long after the appearance of the species itself 200,000 or 300,000 years ago. They claimed that this “Great Leap Forward” was caused by some biological change to the brain, possibly linked to the development of language. In his best-selling book “Sapiens” (which is not taken seriously by the scientific community because of its speculative nature), Harari has put forward a similar idea of a “Tree of Knowledge” genetic mutation 70,000 years ago.
But this idea of some (invisible and unprovable!) biological change to the brain either 40,000 or 70,000 years ago has been shot down in recent years by the discovery of evidence for art and sophisticated tools dating from much earlier than the time that the “Great Leap Forward” is supposed to have happened.
Back to Tattersall. Like the advocates of the “Great Leap Forward”, he also believes that modern symbolic consciousness appeared long after Homo sapiens first evolved. But he argues that the modern brain, with all its full, modern potential, appeared with the first H. sapiens, but that this potential was not fulfilled until much later when H. sapiens started to use symbols and fully-developed language for social/cultural reasons.
It seems to me that there are problems with Tattersall’s view on this. Firstly, there is more and more evidence of art being found that dates back to well before 100,000 years ago. (Tattersall says that this is not proper, symbolic art.) Secondly, it could be that a lot of symbolic art was created very early on, but this has either not survived or not been discovered yet. (As the archaeologists say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”) Thirdly, there seems to be some evidence that language goes back much further than Tattersall suggests, even possibly to Neanderthals and H. heidelbergensis). (Though, again, Tattersall says that this was not fully-developed modern language.)
We certainly need to remember that, even if there was a “creative explosion”, it should not be assumed that behavioural change must be determined by biological change. Why does cultural change have to imply a change to the brain? It is more likely that the brain had become “modern” when Homo sapiens first evolved, and that any later cultural change took place for non-biological reasons. After all, the development of farming 12,000 years ago, of cities and writing 5,000 years ago, and of industry 200 years ago were also “Great Leaps Forward”, but no one believes that these were the result of genetic changes to the human brain.
Apologies for this review being rather long. But I find these two debates fascinating. Anyway, I recommend this book.
(1) The methods used by scientists try to find out the facts. (Some of this part of the book gets rather technical.)
(2) The history of the scientific search for knowledge of human origins.
(3) The current state of knowledge, and the current debates and controversies. (Controversies based on conflicting interpretations of the genetic and fossil evidence.)
In this review, I am just going to focus on Tattersall’s views on two major current debates about the origins of modern Homo sapiens.
Firstly, there is the debate about where H. sapiens originated. To follow this debate, it is necessary to know that there are two types of evolution. Firstly, there is anagenesis. This is where there are evolutionary changes WITHIN a species over time. For example, if the environment (physical, biological or climatic) of an entire species gradually changes, then natural selection could lead to the whole species itself gradually changing.
The other type of evolution is cladogenesis. This is where a new species branches off from an existing one. This speciation process usually takes place when a peripheral population of a species becomes geographically isolated. When this happens, this isolated population can evolve relatively rapidly (in geological terms) into a new species. (This view is compatible with Gould and Eldredge’s theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium”.)
There is a currently influential theory which says that modern H. sapiens did not originate in one place. This theory is called African Multiregionalism or the Pan-African Network model. It says that there were semi-separated populations of a pre-sapiens species (probably Homo heidelbergensis) spread right across Africa. Each population developed slightly different features, but they occasionally interbred. When this happened it led to modern H. sapiens, which is therefore a composite, rather than a result of speciation in one place. This means, in effect, that H. sapiens appeared as a result of anagenesis, not cladogenesis, and that there is really no distinct boundary between H. sapiens and H. heidelbergensis. (Taken to its logical conclusion, it seems to me that it could end up with seeing all the species in the Homo genus as just one big species developing via anagenesis.)
Although Tattersall does not specifically mention this “Network” theory in this particular book, he certainly puts forward a view which totally contradicts the theory. Tattersall opts instead for the importance of cladogenesis, with H. sapiens first appearing in an isolated population and then spreading across Africa to replace other Homo species – quite possibly with some interbreeding with them, as there was later with Neanderthals after H. sapiens had spread out of Africa, because speciation is a process and it takes time for total reproductive isolation to develop. Personally, I’m only an interested amateur, but I find Tattersall’s view more convincing than the Network/African Multiregionalism model.
The second area of debate which Tattersall is involved in relates to when language and modern human consciousness first developed. Some scientists have in the past claimed that in the history of our own species (Homo sapiens) there was a “creative explosion” in Europe about 40,000 years ago (with the appearance of cave art etc), long after the appearance of the species itself 200,000 or 300,000 years ago. They claimed that this “Great Leap Forward” was caused by some biological change to the brain, possibly linked to the development of language. In his best-selling book “Sapiens” (which is not taken seriously by the scientific community because of its speculative nature), Harari has put forward a similar idea of a “Tree of Knowledge” genetic mutation 70,000 years ago.
But this idea of some (invisible and unprovable!) biological change to the brain either 40,000 or 70,000 years ago has been shot down in recent years by the discovery of evidence for art and sophisticated tools dating from much earlier than the time that the “Great Leap Forward” is supposed to have happened.
Back to Tattersall. Like the advocates of the “Great Leap Forward”, he also believes that modern symbolic consciousness appeared long after Homo sapiens first evolved. But he argues that the modern brain, with all its full, modern potential, appeared with the first H. sapiens, but that this potential was not fulfilled until much later when H. sapiens started to use symbols and fully-developed language for social/cultural reasons.
It seems to me that there are problems with Tattersall’s view on this. Firstly, there is more and more evidence of art being found that dates back to well before 100,000 years ago. (Tattersall says that this is not proper, symbolic art.) Secondly, it could be that a lot of symbolic art was created very early on, but this has either not survived or not been discovered yet. (As the archaeologists say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”) Thirdly, there seems to be some evidence that language goes back much further than Tattersall suggests, even possibly to Neanderthals and H. heidelbergensis). (Though, again, Tattersall says that this was not fully-developed modern language.)
We certainly need to remember that, even if there was a “creative explosion”, it should not be assumed that behavioural change must be determined by biological change. Why does cultural change have to imply a change to the brain? It is more likely that the brain had become “modern” when Homo sapiens first evolved, and that any later cultural change took place for non-biological reasons. After all, the development of farming 12,000 years ago, of cities and writing 5,000 years ago, and of industry 200 years ago were also “Great Leaps Forward”, but no one believes that these were the result of genetic changes to the human brain.
Apologies for this review being rather long. But I find these two debates fascinating. Anyway, I recommend this book.
November 20, 2024
Audiobook version.
The last few chapters are really interesting, the first few, quite technical and list heavy, are not at all well served by the audiobook format. That said, I definitely came away with a more nuanced understanding of paleoanthropology, and am glad to have done so.
The narrator for this version is something else. The accent, pace, and diction are pure moustache twirling Victorian villain. The disdain for hominins with lesser cranial capacity and the clear relish with which he treats the word 'paleoanthropological' are alone worth the price of admission.
If this is a topic you fund interesting, worth the time.
The last few chapters are really interesting, the first few, quite technical and list heavy, are not at all well served by the audiobook format. That said, I definitely came away with a more nuanced understanding of paleoanthropology, and am glad to have done so.
The narrator for this version is something else. The accent, pace, and diction are pure moustache twirling Victorian villain. The disdain for hominins with lesser cranial capacity and the clear relish with which he treats the word 'paleoanthropological' are alone worth the price of admission.
If this is a topic you fund interesting, worth the time.
July 1, 2023
He certainly (perhaps justifiably) has a dig at how insular and less than rigourous, the community of scientists studying human evolution have been.
August 3, 2022
Very clearly written. Argues that attribution of fossils to species has often been unhelpful - the dichotomy between Homo and Australopithicus and the identification of "early African Homo erectus" (i.e. Homo ergaster) being prime examples; and that while the capacity for symbolism in Homo sapiens must have arisen with the physiological changes involved in speciation by 200kyr (primarily through mutations of regulatory genes), symbolism itself only appeared with the invention of language proper after 100kyr. The discussion was largely based on physiology, and it would have been nice to see more said about hominin sociality.
March 27, 2023
An brief, but excellent, overview of the history of paleoanthropology and what the current consensus on Human Evolution is. (I did need to brush up on a couple of topics most notably taxonomy to fully comprehend the information-- thank you YouTube.) Loved the last part which dispels most of pervasive misconceptions surrounding human evolution. Only negative, near the end there is a mislabeled illustration (difference between Neanderthal and modern human was switched), which made me wonder if the previous inserts were also mislabeled, but I wouldn't know.
September 14, 2023
- very informative, it did take me a while to read due to its scientific writing style
- I enjoyed the later chapters the most, they were about the life of the neanderthals and the cognitive revolution of the Homo sapiens
- I enjoyed the later chapters the most, they were about the life of the neanderthals and the cognitive revolution of the Homo sapiens
December 23, 2022
A clear, concise and current description of human evolution.
April 6, 2023
A great introductory read if you want to understand the what and "how do we know," of human evolution. Clear prose. Not too technical, but a great bibliography at the end.
July 6, 2024
Concise and well-written. Great overview of the state of the art on the subject.
September 21, 2025
Deep, well researched and informative. Still, wished for an even more accessible intro into human evolution. (But that is more of a comment about my hook selection than the text itself!)
December 2, 2025
great little update book
December 30, 2024
Way too academic for me. There are some great studies and findings and research but not written in an easy enough style of form to be accessible to lay people.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews