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
Tim White is standing with a group of restless men atop a ridge in the Afar desert of Ethiopia. A few of them are pacing back and forth, straining to see if they can spot fragments of beige bone in the reddish-brown rubble below, as eager to start their search as children at an Easter egg hunt. At the bottom of the hill is a 25-foot-long cairn of black rocks erected in the style of an Afar grave, so large it looks like a monument to a fallen hero. And in a way it is. White and his colleagues assembled it to mark the place where they first found traces, in 1994, of “Ardi,” a female who lived 4.4 million years ago. Her skeleton has been described as one of the most important discoveries of the past century, and she is changing basic ideas about how our earliest ancestors looked and moved.
More than 14 years later, White, a wiry 59-year-old paleoanthropologist from the University of California at Berkeley, is here again, on an annual pilgrimage to see if seasonal rains have exposed any new bits of Ardi’s bones or teeth. He often fires up the fossil hunters who work with him by chanting, “Hominid, hominid, hominid! Go! Go! Go!” But he can’t let them go yet. Only a week earlier, an Alisera tribesman had threatened to kill White and two of his Ethiopian colleagues if they returned to these fossil beds near the remote village of Aramis, home of a clan of Alisera nomads. The threat is probably just a bluff, but White doesn’t mess with the Alisera, who are renowned for being territorial and settling disputes with AK-47s. As a precaution, the scientists travel with six Afar regional police officers armed with their own AK-47s.
Arranging this meeting with tribal leaders to negotiate access to the fossil beds has already cost the researchers two precious days out of their five-week field season. “The best- laid plans change every day,” says White, who has also had to deal with poisonous snakes, scorpions, malarial mosquitoes, lions, hyenas, flash floods, dust tornadoes, warring tribesmen and contaminated food and water. “Nothing in the field comes easy.”
As we wait for the Alisera to arrive, White explains that the team returns to this hostile spot year after year because it’s the only place in the world to yield fossils that span such a long stretch of human evolution, some six million years. In addition to Ardi, a possible direct ancestor, it is possible here to find hominid fossils from as recently as 160,000 years ago—an early Homo sapiens like us—all the way back to Ardipithecus kadabba, one of the earliest known hominids, who lived almost six million years ago. At last count, the Middle Awash project, which takes its name from this patch of the Afar desert and includes 70 scientists from 18 nations, has found 300 specimens from seven different hominid species that lived here one after the other.
Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, is now the region’s best-known fossil, having made news worldwide this past fall when White and others published a series of papers detailing her skeleton and ancient environment. She is not the oldest member of the extended human family, but she is by far the most complete of the early hominids; most of her skull and teeth as well as extremely rare bones of her pelvis, hands, arms, legs and feet have so far been found.
With sunlight beginning to bleach out the gray-and-beige terrain, we see a cloud of dust on the horizon. Soon two new Toyota Land Cruisers pull up on the promontory, and a half-dozen Alisera men jump out wearing Kufi caps and cotton sarongs, a few cinched up with belts that also hold long, curved daggers. Most of these clan “elders” appear to be younger than 40—few Alisera men seem to survive to old age.
After customary greetings and handshaking, White gets down on his hands and knees with a few fossil hunters to show the tribesmen how the researchers crawl on the ground, shoulder to shoulder, to look for fossils. With Ethiopian paleoanthropologist and project co-leader Berhane Asfaw translating to Amharic and another person translating from Amharic to Afariña, White explains that these stones and bones reveal the ancient history of humankind. The Alisera smile wanly, apparently amused that anyone would want to grovel on the ground for a living. They grant permission to search for fossils—for now. But they add one caveat. Someday, they say, the researchers must teach them how to get history from the ground.
The quest for fossils of human ancestors began in earnest after Charles Darwin proposed in 1871, in his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, that humans probably arose in Africa. He didn’t base his claim on hard evidence; the only hominid fossils then known were Neanderthals, who had lived in Europe less than 100,000 years ago. Darwin suggested that our “early progenitors” lived on the African continent because its tropical climate was hospitable to apes, and because anatomical studies of modern primates had convinced him that humans were more “allied” with African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) than Asian apes (orangutans and gibbons). Others disagreed, arguing that Asian apes were closer to modern humans.
As it happened, the first truly ancient remains of a hominid—a fossilized skullcap and teeth more than half a million years old—were found in Asia, on the island of Java, in 1891. “Java man,” as the creature was called, was later classified as a member of Homo erectus, a species that arose 1.8 million years ago and may have been one of our direct ancestors.
So began a century of discovery notable for spectacular finds, in which the timeline of human prehistory began to take shape and the debate continued over whether Asia or Africa was the human birthplace.
In 1924, the Australian anatomist Raymond Dart, looking through a crate of fossils from a limestone quarry in South Africa, discovered a small skull. The first early hominid from Africa, the Taung child, as it was known, was a juvenile member of Australopithecus africanus, a species that lived one million to two million years ago, though at the time skeptical scientists said the chimpanzee-size braincase was too small for a hominid.
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)
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
Ardi's pelvic bones had been crushed, so they don't even know that she walked upright, and with her opposable big toes (for climbing), there's no good reason to say it was not just a great ape, now probably extinct.
I have talked to darwinists about the supposed morphing of monkeys into men, and many of them say we didn't morph from monkeys, but from tree shrews, further complicating the role of Ardi in their scheme, which varies with the wind.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on February 24,2010 | 07:46 AM
Ardipithecus jacksonis?
On page 38 of the print version is an insert with an artist depiction of "KEY HUMAN SPECIES". I don't know who the renderings of Au. afarensis and H. habilis are supposed to be, but Ar. ramidus (Ardi) looks like a morph of one of those "Planet of the Apes" chimps with a picture of Michael Jackson.
This is sure to make the news and all of the late-nite comedian talk shows.
Posted by Alan Barber on February 22,2010 | 12:59 PM