Cited by 108Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyMorphological variations and asymmetryEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 87 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

The evolutionary history of the human face

Open access

Abstract

The face is the most distinctive feature used to identify others. Modern humans have a short, retracted face beneath a large globular braincase that is distinctively different from that of our closest living relatives. The face is a skeletal complex formed by 14 individual bones that houses parts of the digestive, respiratory, visual and olfactory systems. A key to understanding the origin and evolution of the human face is analysis of the faces of extinct taxa in the hominin clade over the last 6 million years. Yet, as new fossils are recovered and the number of hominin species grows, the question of how and when the modern human face originated remains unclear. By examining key features of the facial skeleton, here we evaluate the evolutionary history of the modern human face in the context of its development, morphology and function, and suggest that its appearance is the result of a combination of biomechanical, physiological and social influences.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The human face is a 14-bone skeletal complex whose modern short, retracted form evolved over the last ~4 million years through a mix of biomechanical, physiological, and social influences. The paper reviews fossil, developmental, genetic, and morphometric evidence and argues that a modern human-like face appears by ~300 Ka at Jebel Irhoud, with H. antecessor (~850 Ka) as a key possible ancestral morphology.

Key findings

  • The modern human face is relatively small and nonprojecting, lacks pronounced supraorbital and midfacial prognathism, and has a canine fossa; these features do not appear all at once, but crucial elements are present in the earliest H. sapiens lineage, including Jebel Irhoud at ~300 Ka.
  • H. antecessor specimen ATD6-69 (~850 Ka) shows a “modern” maxillary conformation, and growth simulations and remodeling analyses support its modern-like facial development; Sima de los Huesos fossils (~430 Ka) share facial features with Neanderthals and are regarded as Neanderthal ancestors.
  • Facial evolution in hominins involved modular changes: early Ardipithecus and Australopithecus differ in masticatory structures, with Au. afarensis (~3.7–3.0 Ma) showing expansive zygomatic bones and robust masticatory anatomy, while Ar. ramidus (~4.4 Ma) has lightly built zygomatic bones and arches.
  • Modern human facial variation reflects both population history and environmental factors; facial morphology carries a neutral genetic signal but is more strongly affected by climate than other cranial regions, especially in high-latitude populations, and nasal morphology is related to temperature and humidity.

Methods

  • Review/synthesis of the hominin facial skeleton over the last ~4 Ma, focusing on australopiths, early Homo, Middle Pleistocene hominins, and H. sapiens, with key specimens listed in Table 1.
  • Evidence includes comparative craniofacial morphology, developmental growth-remodeling maps of bone deposition and resorption, ancient DNA and quantitative genetic studies, and a principal components analysis of 19 facial three-dimensional landmarks in Pleistocene fossils and modern humans.
  • This is a review; the analyses are drawn from cited studies and previously analyzed morphometric data rather than newly collected primary data.

Limitations

  • The paper states that a detailed account of human facial evolution is difficult because of the intricate nature of facial development and the many pre- and post-natal factors influencing the face.
  • The paper states that future work must integrate potentially conflicting evidence from craniofacial biomechanics, occlusal microwear, and stable isotopes, and must disentangle shared ancestry, climate adaptation, and subsistence effects.
  • Evident from the text: the fossil record is fragmentary and uneven; H. naledi is too incomplete in the face to add much, the Harbin cranium is announced but “not yet published scientifically,” and the identity of the last common ancestor remains unresolved.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-019-0865-7

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

52 Not checked yet · 26 Own interpretation · 13 No basis given · 6 Own result · 1 Supported

Verify all 86 references — free account

Show all 47 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
51 of 51
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The human and chimpanzee/bonobo lineages shared a most recent common ancestor.

    “That the human and chimpanzee/bonobo lineages shared a most recent common ancestor is beyond dispute”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The last common ancestor of H. sapiens and other extinct taxa should predate the appearance of a modern face.

    “the LCA should predate the appearance of a modern face”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Brow ridge reduction accompanied midfacial reduction.

    “It is of interest in this regard that brow ridge reduction accompanied midfacial reduction.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Biomolecular and mechanical signals trigger coordinated bone forming and bone resorbing activity during growth.

    “Such factors include biomolecular and mechanical signals that trigger coordinated bone forming and bone resorbing activity during growth (see Box 2).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Growth remodeling can be determined by analysis of the distribution of depository and resorptive fields on bone surfaces due to the activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts.

    “Growth remodeling can be determined by analysis of the distribution of depository and resorptive fields on bone surfaces due to the activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, respectively.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Such developmental signatures are best characterized in sub-adult individuals.

    “Such developmental signatures are best characterized in sub-adult individuals.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 101 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bastir, M. in Biological Theory (ed. Schwartz, J.) 205–227 (in press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lacruz, R. S., Stringer, C. B., Kimbel, W. H., Wood, B., Harvati, K., O’Higgins, P., Bromage, T. G., & Arsuaga, J.-L.
Affiliations
  • New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (US)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment (DE)
  • University of York (GB)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Lacruz, Rodrigo S.
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Published
2019-04-15
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
726-736
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2936204499
Cited by
108
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5
FWCI
16.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • Docta Complutense (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Fundación Ramón Areces
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG‐FOR 2237, FOR2237)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
facial skeleton, fossil hominins, craniofacial morphology, facial growth, human origins
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Animals, Biological Evolution, Face, Humans, Hominidae, Genome, Human

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review