Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, September 20, 2007 | Science : Anthropology | print version Print | Comments

Document Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor

by John Noble Wilford

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/science/20fossil.html?ref=science

The discovery of four fossil skeletons of early human ancestors in Georgia, the former Soviet republic, has given scientists a revealing glimpse of a species in transition, primitive in its skull and upper body but with more advanced spines and lower limbs for greater mobility.

The findings, being reported today in the journal Nature, are considered a significant step toward understanding who were some of the first ancestors to migrate out of Africa some 1.8 million years ago. They may also yield insights into the first members of the human genus, Homo.

Until now, scientists had found only the skulls of small-brain individuals at the Georgian site of Dmanisi. They said the new evidence apparently showed the anatomical capability of this extinct population for long-distance migrations.

"We still don't know exactly what we have got here," David O. Lordkipanidze, the excavation leader, said Monday in an interview on a visit to New York. "We're only beginning to describe the nature of the early Dmanisi population."

Other paleoanthropologists said the discovery could lead to breakthroughs in the critical evolutionary period in which some members of Australopithecus, the genus made famous by the Lucy skeleton, made the transition to Homo. The step may have been taken more than two million years ago.

"The Australopithecus-Homo transition has always been murky," said Daniel E. Lieberman, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard University. "The new discoveries further highlight the transitional and variable nature of early Homo."

The international team led by Dr. Lordkipanidze, director of the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, found several skulls and stone tools at Dmanisi in the 1990s. They were dated to 1.77 million years ago and resembled Homo erectus, the immediate predecessor of Homo sapiens. The fossils were tentatively assigned to the erectus species.

But erectus had been considered a species with more affinities to modern humans, with large bodies and long faces, smaller teeth and larger brains than predecessors. A young erectus man in Africa, dating to 1.5 million years ago, had a modern body and was almost six feet tall.

The Dmanisi specimens were quite different. Their skull sizes indicated that their brains were not much larger than the brain of a chimpanzee. Their brains were closer in size to those of Homo habilis, a poorly understood earlier ancestral species.

In the last few years, however, the researchers collected more extensive, well-preserved skeletal remains of an adolescent and three adults. Some of the fossils resembled those of later erectus specimens in Africa. The lower limbs and arched feet reflected traits "for improved terrestrial locomotor performance," the team reported.

Over all, the fossils were "a surprising mosaic" of primitive and evolved features. The small body and small craniums, the upper limbs, elbows and shoulders were more like the earliest habilis specimens.

"Thus, the earliest known hominids to have lived outside of Africa in the temperate zones of Eurasia did not yet display the full set" of evolved skeletal features, the scientists concluded.

In an accompanying article in Nature, Dr. Lieberman said the new findings, with other recent research on erectus and habilis fossils in Africa, showed that "early Homo was less modern and more variable than sometimes supposed."

A possible explanation, he said, was that the Dmanisi specimens "were simply smaller than their African relations." Or they may be a different species.

"My hunch," Dr. Lieberman wrote, "is that the Dmanisi and early African H. erectus fossils represent different populations of a single, highly variable species."

Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History, said that when the Dmanisi skulls came to light some scientists thought they represented a distinct species, which they called Homo georgicus. But others settled on an erectus designation.

"By tradition, erectus is the hominid in the middle, between earlier habilis and later Homo sapiens," Dr. Tattersall said. "This mind-set prevailed."

But more significant, he said, the Dmanisi skeletons may reveal how early human ancestors could move out of Africa. Once larger brains, better tools and evolved limb proportions were the probable explanations. Previous discoveries ruled out the first two, but provided no direct evidence for the third.

"It seems the limb proportions to traverse environments out of Africa were there at least 1.8 million years ago," he said.

Comments 1 - 7 of 7 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #72214 by eric.malitz on September 20, 2007 at 2:32 pm

The first paragraph was unfortunate I thought, at least in educating the general reader who immediately gets the picture of evolution working towards modern humans.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

2. Comment #72355 by robotaholic on September 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm

 avatar...like Professor Dawkins says "the evidence keeps piling on..."

Other Comments by robotaholic

3. Comment #72403 by CJ22 on September 21, 2007 at 1:57 am

 avatar"for improved terrestrial locomotor performance,"

"improved walking capability", perhaps?

This is important for many reasons, but one that springs to mind immediately is that it puts one more nail in the coffin of the oft cried theist refrain "there are no transitional fossils". Not that it needed any more nails from a scientific point-of-view, but it's always nice to be able to point to an easily understood example.

Other Comments by CJ22

4. Comment #72446 by irate_atheist on September 21, 2007 at 6:04 am

 avatarOh, no no no, CJ22.

The theists will just point to an extra 'gap'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

5. Comment #72546 by Konradius on September 21, 2007 at 2:48 pm


By tradition, erectus is the hominid...


Am I the only one who is reminded by pr Dawkins example of how scientists do not reason when discussing science?

Or did someone have a revelation why erectus should be the middle and is it official dogma that erectus is the middle hominid?

Of course, after reading The Selfish Gene we know that putting spiecies in boxes with names is a human construct. And it does seem the option was open to challenge the prevailing mindset.

But still, I didn't like the wording.

Other Comments by Konradius

6. Comment #74833 by Enlightenme.. on September 30, 2007 at 6:41 pm

 avatar'Traditions' are for overturning.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

7. Comment #74835 by Goldy on September 30, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Traditions are for overturning, but one had to fight some pretty big egos! ;-)
Species are placed where they are, I presume, by dint of their physiology relative to ours and to earlier hominids. Of course, as more data becomes available, they can be moved.

Other Comments by Goldy
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com