This is a well-researched and detailed volume and covers those regions populated by modern humans (Africa, Eurasia, Australia and the Americas) and their ancestors (Africa). It is divided into seven chapters with copious illustrations, tables and boxes, and accompanied by Notes, a Bibliography, Acknowledgements and an Index. I will here give an overview of the book’s contents with some comments.

In Chapter 1, Hoffecker provides background information relevant to gaining further insight of the evolution of modern Homo sapiens, including brain development in Homo, the transition of archaic hominins to H. sapiens and the importance of information, complexity and technology.

The key theme is the origin of modern humans and their dispersal to Eurasia (Chapter 2). This includes a discussion of the main models to explain where H. sapiens evolved. Hoffecker (p. 48–49) points to the efforts made by Day and Stringer in 1982 to define what a modern human is. What he might also have mentioned is Clark Howell’s (Reference Howell, Maglio and Cooke1978) attempt to do just that as part of his extensive study of the Hominidae. One of the most significant recent developments in science has been the whole genome analysis of ancient DNA (hereafter aDNA) of later Pleistocene human remains. Unlike previous aDNA studies such as mitochondrial DNA, this method is capable of identifying more substantial data pertaining to relationships with other human species (p. 71–73). Significantly, genetic analyses of hominin fossils have shown interbreeding between Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans (e.g., BOX 2.2).

On page 70, Hoffecker uses [maxillary] shovel-shaped incisors as an example of problems in interpreting phylogenetic relationships of human species. He argues that because shovel-shaped incisors occur not only in Homo erectus and “modern humans in East Asia”, but also outside of this region and in different epochs, it does not in consequence indicate a “direct genetic link.” The only sources cited are Weidenreich (1946) and Coon (1962). In fact, the highest incidence of maxillary shovel-shaped incisors is in contemporary Chinese and Amerinds (e.g., Cadien Reference Cadien1972) and as recorded in every Chinese fossil hominin which preserves incisors, and these, moreover, have a distinct shovel morphology compared to other regions (e.g., Frayer et al. Reference Frayer, Wolpoff, Thorne, Smith and Pope1993; Wu and Poirier Reference Wu and Poirier1995:235).

The evolutionary context of H. sapiens is the subject of Chapter 3, ranging from the evolution of the Metazoan brain, resulting, for example, in an enlarged neocortex; the increase in the visual-processing area of the brain in the early primates, and later improved color vision, to the earliest hominins, significant here, for example, their bipedality, tool manufacture, the beginnings of human language, and adaptation to and exploitation of a variety of habitats.

Various aspects of the evolution of modern humans are presented in Chapter 4, including those critical to the evolution of the modern human brain and the increasing complexity of the toolkit. Anthropological and genetic studies trace the origin of anatomically modern humans to sub-Saharan Africa, evolved there from Homo heidelbergensis. The latter has been documented also in Europe and the single representative in eastern Eurasia, namely the calotte from Narmada in India. A few of the archaic Homo specimens from East Asia, including the almost complete Dali cranium and the partial skeleton from the Jinniushan site (e.g., Wu and Poirier Reference Wu and Poirier1995: 114–124; Pope Reference Pope1992), are mentioned in a footnote only as “possible representatives of Homo heidelbergensis” (p. 382, Note 36; p. 357). This avoidance of any discussion of their place in terms of phylogeny and the modern human origins debate suggests that archaic Homo from China are not significant, a view that is by no means shared by all anthropologists (e.g., Wu and Poirier Reference Wu and Poirier1995; Hawks and Wolpoff Reference Hawks and Wolpoff2001; Gao et al. Reference Gao, Peng, Fu and Li2017).

The dispersal of modern humans to southern Asia and Australasia, Northern Eurasia and Beringia and the Americas is covered in chapters 5–7. An important issue here is addressing the question which route modern humans initially traveled from Africa to further east. The southern dispersal hypothesis proposes a route along the southern Arabian Peninsula to southern Asia via the coasts (p. 207–210, 213). An alternative view, albeit restricted to a small region of western India, Kachchh (Gujarat), located no Late Paleolithic industries of Late Pleistocene age, only Middle Paleolithic artifacts (and Late Acheulean?), which may indicate modern human dispersal via the inland (Blinkhorn et al. Reference Blinkhorn, Ajithprasad and Mukherjee2017).

Apart from further research at the Great Cave of Niah (Sarawak), with its modern human dated to ca. 46,000–34,000 years ago by the U-series and ¹⁴C methods (e.g., Table 5.1, p. 225), more evidence of modern human occupation in island Southeast Asia has emerged in recent years, for example, on Timor island (p. 231), though only a few of the many thousands of islands have been investigated to date (e.g., Keates Reference Keates2004). Opportunities for modern human (and animal) dispersal between mainland Southeast Asia and some of the larger (Sumatra, Java, and Borneo) and also some smaller islands of the Sunda shelf (BOX 5.3) is revealed by estimates of how long the shelf was exposed and became dry land (Voris Reference Voris2000). Here, as in southern Asia, and along parts of the now submerged shelves of China, Japan and Korea, evidence of human occupation could lie buried beneath the sea. In order to colonize other islands and, further on, Sahul, watercraft was a vital technology though direct evidence of boats and/or rafts made of perishable materials like bamboo is lacking (p. 233–235).

One of the most complete individuals of modern humans in East Asia is from the Liujiang site (Tongtianyan Cave) in southern China. There have been several attempts to consolidate the age of this partial skeleton, discovered in the process of guano digging by farmers in 1958 close to the cave entrance. Hoffecker argues that the Liujiang human has a provisional Uranium-series date of 68,000 to 61,000 years ago even though the association between the hominin and the breccia is “problematic” (Table 5.1, p. 211). The stratigraphic relationship of the U-series date to the human fossils is not known (e.g., Keates Reference Keates2010). The most recent dating by U-series on flowstone has resulted in dates of 111,000–139,000 years ago or older than 153,000 years ago (Shen et al. Reference Shen, Wang, Wang, Zhao, Collerson, Zhou and Tobias2002, reference in Hoffecker on p. 471, though the dates generated by Shen et al. [Reference Shen, Wang, Wang, Zhao, Collerson, Zhou and Tobias2002] are not mentioned in the book).

An additional problem with the most recent dates for Liujiang is the question how to reconcile the cranial morphology with such early dates. According to Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Wu and Wang2006), Liujiang is most similar to modern Chinese, more modern that the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave humans, and that the early U-series age of ca. 67,000 years ago is not justified. An obvious solution to the dating dilemma would be to attempt direct ¹⁴C dating of Liujiang (given enough collagen), but, even though radiocarbon laboratories exist there, this is a most difficult undertaking in China (Keates Reference Keates2010). So far, there is only one direct ¹⁴C date for a modern human of Pleistocene age (Tianyuan Cave, see Table 6.1, p. 252). Direct dating of a human bone from the Ordos (Xarus Valley), previously indirectly dated to ca. 35,000 BP resulted in a direct ¹⁴C date of ca. 210–275 BP (Shang et al. Reference Shang, Wei and Wu2006; Keates et al. Reference Keates, Hodgins, Kuzmin and Orlova2007). The 160 kyr date for H. sapiens teeth from “Bailong Cave” (correctly: Bailian Cave or Bailiandong) does have “much younger…dates” (Table 5.1, p. 211), namely ca. 30 kyr (e.g., Yuan et al. Reference Yuan, Zhou, Guo, Zhang, Gao, Li, Wang, Liu, Li and Lu1995). While OSL dates of sediments are increasingly applied to sites in China (Table 5.1), it remains to be seen how they would tally with direct ¹⁴C ages (Keates and Kuzmin Reference Keates and Kuzmin2015). In Japan, the oldest directly ¹⁴C dated modern human is from the Shiraho-Saonetabaru Cave (Okinawa) at ca. 20,416 BP (Nagakawa et al. Reference Nakagawa, Doi, Nishioka, Nunami, Yamauchi, Fujita, Yamazaki, Yamamoto, Katagiri, Mukai, Matsuzaki, Gakuhari, Takigami and Yoneda2010).

For some time now, there has been a debate about the age of the Kent’s Cavern human maxilla (KC4). A direct ¹⁴C AMS date of the KC4 maxilla measured the age at ca. 30,900 BP (Hedges et al. Reference Hedges, Housley, Law and Bronk1989), However, subsequent evaluation found the specimen’s carbon to be contaminated with glue (Jacobi et al. Reference Jacobi, Higham and Bronk Ramsey2006). In Table 6.1 (p. 252), the new ¹⁴C date of KC4 is referred to as ca. 44,200–41,500 BP. What is not mentioned is that the estimated age of the maxilla is based on the ¹⁴C dating of associated (and unmodified) animal fossils. Further, as noted by White and Pettitt (Reference White and Pettitt2012), there are problems with the stratigraphic integrity of the (modern?) human bone: it cannot be shown that it was associated with the Initial Upper Paleolithic (hereafter IUP).

The date for the northern Chinese site complex of Shuidonggou is given as 41,000–34,000 years ago where large blades were discovered (p. 297–298, Table 6.8). The particular sites are Shuidonggou 1 (ca. 41,000 cal BP) and Shuidonggou 2 (ca. 32,600–41,500 cal BP). The early dates for the blade cores at Shuidonggou 1 and the Levallois–like blade technology at Shuidonggou 2 can, however, not be supported because the dates are not consistent with the sites’ stratigraphy (Keates and Kuzmin Reference Keates and Kuzmin2015).

Relevant to the discoveries of hominins, fauna and artifacts, including adornments, made at Denisova Cave (Altai Mountains, Siberia; Table 6.8, p. 297) are the taphonomic analyses carried out by Turner et al. (Reference Turner, Ovodov and Pavlova2013). These studies revealed significant disturbance of the Denisova deposits by carnivores, especially hyenas, and need to be considered in any discussions about the site’s stratigraphy, chronology and context of archaeological materials (Turner et al. Reference Turner, Ovodov and Pavlova2013: 367). These include part of a “bracelet” made in chloritolite found in the Eastern Gallery (“entrance zone”) of layer 11.1 and attributed to the IUP (Derevianko et al. Reference Derevianko, Shunkov and Volkov2008:15), which “probably date[s] to well before 30,000 years ago.” (p. 297). The uncritical acceptance of a Late Pleistocene date for such an advanced artifact in terms of highly skilled manufacture (“non-typical for the Paleolithic”, “two-sided fast stationary drilling”, Derevianko et al. Reference Derevianko, Shunkov and Volkov2008:24) is puzzling: no other such items of a pre-Neolithic age are known, and, in this respect, the disturbed nature of the Denisova deposit should be taken into account. Was the bracelet found in situ? Or could it derive from the Holocene deposit situated above where Paleometal to Late Medieval layers (strata 0–8) (see Derevianko and Molodin Reference Derevianko and Molodin1994) were recorded?

The directly ¹⁴C–dated femur from Ust’-Ishim (Siberia) bears witness to the so far earliest evidence of modern humans in northern Eurasia at ca. 45,000 BP (p. 248–251). Here, as in southern Siberia, China and Europe, recent aDNA studies are revealing the genetic relationships of modern human fossils to their ancestors in Africa and across the Eurasian and American continents. For example, the Ust’-Ishim mtDNA has the same haplogroup R as the Fumane 2 individual from Grotta di Fumane in northern Italy (Table 6.1, p. 312–313).

The consequences of the Late Glacial Maximum (hereafter LGM) on humans when some parts of the world were buried under thick ice sheets (e.g., northwestern Europe), while in other parts land became exposed because of falling sea-levels (e.g., the Sunda shelf, see above) are especially important with respect to Beringia and the first settling of the Americas by the ancestors of Native Americans as Beringia may have been a refugium for the latter (Chapter 7). This appears to be underscored by aDNA studies indicating some genetic isolation. Genetic research has also made it possible to identify ancient connections across the Americas (Table 7.1, p. 305–313). The earliest secure dates for initial human settlement of the Americas are around 14,000 BP (e.g., Table 7.2).

On page 412 (Note 9), Hoffecker contends that radiocarbon dates, especially on bone “from the colder and drier regions of Eurasia…appear likely [to] have been contaminated by younger carbon.” He also argues that the cold temperatures of the LGM made life impossible for humans in these regions because of insufficient “plant and animal productivity” (p. 303). Considering the possibility of contamination, a recent evaluation of the northern Eurasian LGM excluded ¹⁴C non-human bone dates (Kuzmin and Keates Reference Kuzmin and Keates2018). The study showed that humans lived in central and southern Siberia during the LGM (ca. 27,000–23,000 cal BP). Radiocarbon dates suggest that humans occupied southern and central Siberia from at least ca. 38,500–30,000 cal BP (e.g., Kuzmin and Keates Reference Kuzmin and Keates2018). It should also be clear that the most important part of selecting bone for radiocarbon dating is the preservation of collagen (at least 1% of the weight, e.g., Kuzmin and Keates Reference Kuzmin and Keates2005, Reference Kuzmin and Keates2018; Kuzmin Reference Kuzmin2008). Further, several hundred direct radiocarbon dates on megafauna from Siberia at the LGM (see, Kuzmin and Keates Reference Kuzmin and Keates2018 and references therein) are at odds with statements that the region was abandoned because of a lack of floral food resources. This is also underpinned by research showing the presence of large fauna in the Late Pleistocene of Siberia (see Kahlke Reference Kahlke1994). What needs to be considered in this respect is the adaptation to cold resistance of mammalian fauna in Eurasia, a process which began in the Middle Pleistocene with changes in body proportions and an increasing biomechanical capability of the fauna (Kahlke Reference Kahlke1994).

With the wealth of data and insight, this book can be highly recommended to both academic and lay readers and should prove a valuable source for students of archaeology and anthropology.