The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors
Studies of hominid fossils, like 4.4-million-year-old "Ardi," are changing ideas about human origins
- By Ann Gibbons
- Smithsonian magazine, March 2010, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 4)
In 1959, archaeologist Louis Leakey and his wife Mary, working in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, discovered a bit of hominid jawbone that would later become known as Paranthropus boisei. The 1.75-million-year-old fossil was the first of many hominids the Leakeys, their son Richard and their associates would find in East Africa, strengthening the case that hominids indeed originated in Africa. Their work inspired American and European researchers to sweep through the Great Rift Valley, a geologic fault that runs through Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia and exposes rock layers that are millions of years old.
In 1974, paleoanthropologists Donald Johanson and Tom Gray, digging in Hadar, Ethiopia, found the partial skeleton of the earliest known hominid at the time—a female they called Lucy, after the Beatles’ song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which was playing in camp as they celebrated. At 3.2 million years old, Lucy was remarkably primitive, with a brain and body about the size of a chimpanzee’s. But her ankle, knee and pelvis showed that she walked upright like us.
This meant Lucy was a hominid—only humans and our close relatives in the human family habitually walk upright on the ground. A member of the species Australopithecus afarensis, which lived from 3.9 million to 2.9 million years ago, Lucy helped answer some key questions. She confirmed that upright walking evolved long before hominids began using stone tools—about 2.6 million years ago—and before their brains began to expand dramatically. But her upright posture and gait raised new questions. How long had it taken to evolve the anatomy to balance on two feet? What prompted some ancient ape to stand up and begin walking down the path toward humanness? And what kind of ape was it?
Lucy, of course, couldn’t answer those questions. But what came before her? For 20 years after her discovery, it was as if the earliest chapter of the human story were missing.
One of the first teams to search for lucy’s ancestor was the Middle Awash project, which formed in 1981 when White and Asfaw joined Berkeley archaeologist J. Desmond Clark to search for fossils and stone tools in Ethiopia. They got off to a promising start—finding 3.9-million-year-old fragments of a skull and a slightly younger thighbone—but they were unable to return to the Middle Awash until 1990, because Ethiopian officials imposed a moratorium on searching for fossils while they rewrote their antiquities laws. Finally, in 1992, White’s graduate student, Gen Suwa, saw a glint in the desert near Aramis. It was the root of a tooth, a molar, and its size and shape indicated that it belonged to a hominid. Suwa and other members of the Middle Awash project soon collected other fossils, including a child’s lower jaw with a milk molar still attached. State-of-the-art dating methods indicated that they were 4.4 million years old.
The team proposed in the journal Nature in 1994 that the fossils—now known as Ardipithecus ramidus—represented the “long-sought potential root species for the Hominidae,” meaning that the fossils belonged to a new species of hominid that could have given rise to all later hominids. The idea that it was a member of the human family was based primarily on its teeth—in particular, the absence of large, dagger-like canines sharpened by the lower teeth. Living and extinct apes have such teeth, while hominids don’t. But the gold standard for being a hominid was upright walking. So was A. ramidus really a hominid or an extinct ape?
White joked at the time that he would be delighted with more fossils—in particular, a skull and thighbone. It was as if he had placed an order. Within two months, another graduate student of White’s, Ethiopian paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie, spotted two pieces of a bone from the palm of a hand—their first sign of Ardi. The team members eventually found 125 pieces of Ardi’s skeleton. She had been a muscular female who stood almost four feet tall but could have weighed as much as 110 pounds, with a body and brain roughly the same size as a chimpanzee’s. As they got a good look at Ardi’s body plan, they soon realized that they were looking at an entirely new type of hominid.
It was the find of a lifetime. But they were daunted by Ardi’s condition. Her bones were so brittle that they crumbled when touched. White called them “road kill.”
The researchers spent three field seasons digging out entire blocks of sedimentary rock surrounding the fossils, encasing the blocks in plaster and driving them to the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa. In the museum lab, White painstakingly injected glue from syringes into each fragment and then used dental tools and brushes, often under a microscope, to remove the silty clay from the glue-hardened fossils. Meanwhile, Suwa, today a paleoanthropologist at the University of Tokyo, analyzed key fossils with modified CT scanners to see what was inside them and used computer imaging to digitally restore the crushed skull. Finally, he and anatomist C. Owen Lovejoy worked from the fossils and the computer images to make physical models of the skull and pelvis.
It’s a measure of the particularity, complexity and thoroughness of the researchers’ efforts to understand Ardi in depth that they took 15 years to publish their detailed findings, which appeared this past October in a series of 11 papers in the journal Science. In short, they wrote that Ardi and fossils from 35 other members of her species, all found in the Middle Awash, represented a new type of early hominid that wasn’t much like a chimpanzee, gorilla or a human. “We have seen the ancestor and it’s not a chimpanzee,” says White.
This came as a surprise to researchers who had proposed that the earliest hominids would look and act a lot like chimpanzees. They are our closest living relatives, sharing 96 percent of our DNA, and they are capable of tool use and complex social behavior. But Ardi’s discoverers proposed that chimpanzees have changed so dramatically as they have evolved over the past six million years or so, that today’s chimpanzees make poor models for the last common ancestor we shared.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Body Fossils Archaeology Pleistocene Ethiopia
Additional Sources
“Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Nature, July 12, 2001.
“New specimens and confirmation of an early age of Australopithecus anamensis,” Meave G. Leakey et al., Nature, May 7, 1998.
“First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya),” Brigitte Senut et al., Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences - Series IIA - Earth and Planetary Science, January 30, 2001.
“A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa,” Michel Brunet et al., Nature, July 11, 2002









Comments (16)
+ View All Comments
weird but interesting
Posted by Billy Joe on February 5,2013 | 08:49 AM
This is a question from an interested novice. I am guessing "Ardi" is determined to be female from the hip bones. I understand that only human female mammals breasts are swollen full time. If the hip bones suggest "Ardi" is female, what determines her breasts are swollen? She does not appear to be pregnant. I don't like assuming her breasts are swollen because she is a female hominid, but what other fact(s) support that conclusion other than the fact she is determined to be a female hominid?
Posted by Roger Henry on January 10,2012 | 03:58 PM
Darwin "never" brought up "monkeys" by the way. In fact, from fish due to the identical gills displayed in the human embryo. Huxley is credited with the "monkey" routine. It might help the intellectual credibility here if you people would read Darwin's book.
Posted by Dennis T on November 7,2011 | 03:25 PM
James: paleontologists don't actually have to use the hips to determine whether a creature walked upright or not, but rather the opening in the skull that leads to the spine. Folks that walk on two feet have a spinal cord that comes out of the bottom of the skull, and four-footed critters have a hole in the back of the skull! Also, when someone uses four feet to walk, they have a bony ridge on the top of their skull (called a mid-sagittal crest) that muscle tissue anchors to in order to keep the head from lolling around since the core of the body doesn't support it.
Therefore, you just need to take a really quick look at ardi's skull, not hips, to see how she walked.
Cheers!
Posted by Allison Zank on July 6,2010 | 10:51 AM
Jason Roberts, the Smithsonian has an article about the soft dino (t-rex) tissue discovered, studied by Schweitzer, which ostensibly could be tested for dna; no announcement yet one way or the other (and a carbon 14 reading would be interesting to see too), but I don't know that tree shrew fossils have been discovered with soft tissue remaining to test, however, there have been many other soft tissue samples obtained from partially fossilized remains which purportedly are 65 million years old.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on March 16,2010 | 09:57 AM
Why are Dna tests not done on these would it still be possible?
Posted by Jason Roberts on March 14,2010 | 10:51 AM
Tree shrews obviously have never morhped into a new kind of animal, they're with us today, little different than the paleo version from "65 million" years ago. Most of the syngameons of animals we see today are represented in the fossil record, indicating creatures have not been morphing into new creatures for hundreds of millions of years.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on March 5,2010 | 09:09 AM
Actually the tree shrew thing is legit. We're not descended from monkeys, because the monkey and ape lineages split before the ape lineage ever gave rise to modern gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. So we share a common ancestor with Old and New World Monkeys (spider monkeys, capuchins, baboons, etc) but we're not descended from them.
And that ancestor is thought to be "plesiadapiforms" from the Paleocene (ca. 65 million years ago) which are comparable to modern day... tree shrews!
Source: Bio Anthro 101
Posted by Bethe on March 1,2010 | 02:22 AM
Re the morphing. I suggest many have not had at least 8 credit hours of genetics.
Posted by Dennis Tedder on February 27,2010 | 10:17 AM
Whatever the case, this isn't human and it isn't Pongidae. Re Brendan, the bones are real and tangible. Belief is...belief and intangible as no proof exists of creation and the Bible. The universe is 14 plus billion years old and expanding and that is something on which all scientists agree. The earth a mere 4 billion - on which all scientists agree (except those that think it is 6000 years old. I have to believe in the tangible.
Posted by Dennis Tedder on February 27,2010 | 10:14 AM
Wouldnt there have had to have been a bit more of the upper arm found in order to determine that its arms were that long? And where exactly did the 4.4 million years date come from, the imagination that produced the artistic rendering?
This is not science, it falls within the realm of religious belief, since in order to believe in something like this you have to have faith in the system that created it.
Posted by Brendan Kulp on February 25,2010 | 01:17 AM
So Jon, what is the ancestral line of "species" you think led up to humans having supposedly evolved?
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on February 25,2010 | 04:34 PM
Dear James. I'm not sure what "darwinists" you have been talking with, but they have obviously confused this issue for you. Asking others for help to better understand something is an important skill, but so is knowing who to ask. When I'm not sure, I consult these things called "books". You seem concerned that our knowledge of the past varies with time. It does so (though not as drastically as you seem to imply) because it is evidence based and, thus, subject to modification. As a scientist, I wish I had a infallible and non-self-contradictory book that explained all past events, but we both know it does not exist.
Posted by Jon Smith on February 25,2010 | 12:39 PM
The time-line in the print version of this article and in the link above ("Unearthing Our Roots"), uses the wrong pictures to illustrate the first two hominids it highlights.
See:
http://pigeonchess.com/2010/02/24/hominid-confusion/
Someone might want to correct the online version at least.
Posted by Troy Britain on February 24,2010 | 08:04 PM
+ View All Comments