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 4 of 4)
In 2000, Martin Pickford of the College of France and Brigitte Senut of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris announced their team had found an even older hominid—13 fossils representing a species that lived six million years ago in the Tugen Hills of Kenya. Two of the fossils were thighbones, including one that provided the oldest direct evidence of upright walking in a hominid. They named this creature Orrorin tugenensis, drawing on a Tugen legend of the “original man” who settled the Tugen Hills. Informally, in honor of its year of discovery, they called it Millennium man.
Hot on the heels of that discovery came the most surprising one of all—a skull from Chad, about 1,500 miles west of the Great Rift Valley of eastern Africa where many of the most ancient hominids have been found. A Chadian student named Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye picked up a ball of rock on the floor of the Djurab Desert, where windstorms blow sand dunes like waves on a sea and expose fossils buried for millions of years. When Djimdoumalbaye turned over the stone, he stared into the vacant eye sockets of an ape-like face—the skull of a primate that lived six million to seven million years ago on the shores of an ancient lake. It had traits that suggested it was a hominid—a small lower face and canines and a skull that seemed to sit atop its spine, as in upright walkers. Paleontologist Michel Brunet, then of the University of Poitiers in France, introduced it as the oldest known hominid, Sahelanthropus tchadensis. (Its nickname is Toumaï, which means “hope of life” in the Goran language.) But proving that a skull walked upright is difficult, and questions linger about whether Sahelanthropus is a bona fide hominid or not.
Taken together, fossils discovered over the past 15 years have provided snapshots of several different creatures that were alive in Africa at the critical time when the earliest members of the human family were emerging. When these snapshots are added to the human family album, they double the time researchers can see back into our past—from Lucy at 3.2 million years to Toumaï at almost 7 million years.
One of the most sought-after fossils of that distant era was Lucy’s direct ancestor. In 1994, 20 years after Lucy’s skeleton was discovered, a team in Kenya led by Meave Leakey (the wife of Richard Leakey) found teeth and parts of a jaw as well as two pieces of shinbone that showed the creature walked upright. The fossils, named Australopithecus anamensis, were 4.1 million years old.
“This has been a fascinating 40 years to be in paleoanthropology,” says Johanson, “one of the great times to be in this field.” But, he adds, “there’s still enormous confusion” about the murky time before 4 million years ago.
One thing that is clear is that these early fossils belong in a class by themselves. These species did not look or act like other known apes or like Lucy and other members of Australopithecus. They were large-bodied ground dwellers that stood up and walked on two legs. But if you watched them move, you would not mistake them for Lucy’s species. They clung to life in the trees, but were poised to venture into more open country. In many ways, these early species resemble one another more than any fossils ever found before, as if there was a new developmental or evolutionary stage that our ancestors passed through before the transition was complete from ape to hominid. Indeed, when the skulls of Toumaï and Ardi are compared, the resemblance is “striking,” says paleoanthropologist Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich in Switzerland. The fossils are too far apart in time to be members of the same species, but their skulls are more like each other than they are like Lucy’s species, perhaps signaling similar adaptations in diet or reproductive and social behavior.
The only way to find out how all these species are related to one another and to us is to find more bones. In particular, researchers need to find more overlapping parts of very early fossils so they can be compared directly—such as an upper end of a thighbone for both Ardi and Toumaï to compare with the upper thighbone of O. tugenensis.
At Aramis, as soon as the clan leaders gave the Middle Awash team their blessing, White began dispatching team members like an air traffic controller, directing them to fan out over the slope near Ardi’s grave. The sun was high in the sky, though, making it hard to distinguish beige bone among the bleached out sediments. This time, the team found no new hominid fossils.
But one morning later that week, the team members drove up a dry riverbed to a site on the western margin of the Middle Awash. Only a few moments after hiking into the fossil beds, a Turkish postdoctoral researcher, Cesur Pehlevan, planted a yellow flag among the cobbles of the remote gully. “Tim!” he shouted. “Hominid?” White walked over and silently examined the molar, turning it over in his hand. White has the ability to look at a tooth or bone fragment and recognize almost immediately whether it belongs to a hominid. After a moment, he pronounced his verdict: “very good, Cesur. It’s virtually unworn.” The molar belonged to a young adult A. kadabba, the species whose fossils began to be found here in 1997. Now the researchers had one more piece to help fill in the portrait of this 5.8-million-year-old species.
“There’s your discovery moment,” said White. He reflected on the fossils they’ve bagged in this remote desert. “This year, we’ve got A. kadabba, A. anamensis, A. garhi, H. erectus, H. sapiens.” That’s five different kinds of hominids, most of which were unknown when White first started searching for fossils here in 1981. “The Middle Awash is a unique area,” he said. “It is the only place on the planet Earth where you can look at the full scope of human evolution.”
Ann Gibbons is a correspondent for Science and the author of The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4
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