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 3 of 4)
In his lab at Kent State University, Lovejoy recently demonstrated why Ardi is so unusual. He gently lined up four bones from Ardi’s hand on his lab bench, and he showed how they fit together in a way that allowed Ardi’s hand to bend far backward at the wrist. By comparison, a chimpanzee’s wrist is stiff, which allows the animal to put its weight on its knuckles as it moves on the ground—knuckle walking. “If you wanted to evolve Ardi’s hand, you couldn’t do it from this,” he said, waving a set of bones from a chimpanzee hand in the air. If Lovejoy is right, this means Ardi—and our upright-walking ancestors—never went through a knuckle-walking stage after they came down from the trees to live on the ground, as some experts have long believed.
As evidence that Ardi walked upright on the ground, Lovejoy pointed to a cast of her upper pelvic blades, which are shorter and broader than an ape’s. They would have let her balance on one leg at a time while walking upright. “This is a monstrous change—this thing has been a biped for a very long time,” Lovejoy said.
But Ardi didn’t walk like us or, for that matter, like Lucy either. Ardi’s lower pelvis, like a chimpanzee’s, had powerful hip and thigh muscles that would have made it difficult to run as fast or as far as modern humans can without injuring her hamstrings. And she had an opposable big toe, so her foot was able to grasp branches, suggesting she still spent a lot of time in the trees—to escape predators, pick fruit or even sleep, presumably in nests made of branches and leaves. This unexpected combination of traits was a “shocker,” says Lovejoy.
He and his colleagues have proposed that Ardi represents an early stage of human evolution when an ancient ape body plan was being remodeled to live in two worlds—in the trees and on the ground, where hominids increasingly foraged for plants, eggs and small critters.
The Ardi research also challenged the long-held views that hominids evolved in a grassy savanna, says Middle Awash project geologist Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Ardi researchers’ thorough canvassing—“You crawl on your hands and knees, collecting every piece of bone, every piece of wood, every seed, every snail, every scrap,” White says—indicates that Ardi lived in woodland with a closed canopy, so little light reached grass and plants on the forest floor. Analyzing thousands of specimens of fossilized plants and animals, as well as hundreds of samples of chemicals in sediments and tooth enamel, the researchers found evidence of such forest species as hackberry, fig and palm trees in her environment. Ardi lived alongside monkeys, kudu antelopes and peafowl—animals that prefer woodlands, not open grasslands.
Ardi is also providing insights into ancient hominid behavior. Moving from the trees to the ground meant that hominids became easier prey. Those that were better at cooperating could live in larger social groups and were less likely to become a big cat’s next meal. At the same time, A. ramidus males were not much larger than females and they had evolved small, unsharpened canine teeth. That’s similar to modern humans, who are largely cooperative, and in contrast to modern chimpanzees, whose males use their size to dominate females and brandish their dagger-like canines to intimidate other males.
As hominids began increasingly to work together, Lovejoy says, they also adopted other previously unseen behaviors—to regularly carry food in their hands, which allowed them to provision mates or their young more effectively. This behavior, in turn, may have allowed males to form tighter bonds with female mates and to invest in the upbringing of their offspring in a way not seen in African apes. All this reinforced the shift to life on the ground, upright walking and social cooperation, says Lovejoy.
Not everyone is convinced that Ardi walked upright, in part because the critical evidence comes from her pelvis, which was crushed. While most researchers agree that she is a hominid, based on features in her teeth and skull, they say she could be a type of hominid that was a distant cousin of our direct ancestor—a newfound offshoot on the human family tree. “I think it’s solid” that Ardi is a hominid, if you define hominids by their skull and teeth, says Rick Potts, a paleoanthropologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. But, like many others who have not seen the fossils, he has yet to be convinced that the crushed but reconstructed pelvis proves upright walking, which could mean that Ardi might have been an extinct ape that was “experimenting” with some degree of upright walking. “The period between four million to seven million years is when we know the least,” says Potts. “Understanding what is a great ape and what is a hominid is tough.”
As researchers sort out where Ardi sits in the human family tree, they agree that she is advancing fundamental questions about human evolution: How can we identify the earliest members of the human family? How do we recognize the first stages of upright walking? What did our common ancestor with chimpanzees look like? “We didn’t have much at all before,” says Bill Kimbel, an Arizona State University paleoanthropologist. “Ardipithecus gives us a prism to look through to test alternatives.”
After Ardi’s discovery, researchers naturally began to wonder what came before her. They didn’t have long to wait.
Starting in 1997, Haile-Selassie, now at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, found fossils between 5.2 million and 5.8 million years old in the Middle Awash. A toe bone suggested its owner had walked upright. The bones looked so much like a primitive version of A. ramidus he proposed these fossils belonged to her direct ancestor—a new species he eventually named Ardipithecus kadabba.
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