by John Noble Wilford
Two ancient skulls, one from central Africa and the other from the
Black Sea republic of Georgia, have shaken the human family tree to
its roots, sending scientists scrambling to see if their favorite
theories are among the fallen fruit.
Probably so, according to paleontologists, who may have to make
major revisions in the human genealogy and rethink some of their
ideas about the first migrations out of Africa by human relatives.
National Geographic Society
This could be the face of the first human to leave Africa, the
August issue of National Geographic magazine says. The
1.75-million-year-old skull, found in the republic of Georgia, had a
tiny brain, not nearly the size scientists thought our ancestors
needed to migrate into a new land.
Yet, despite all the confusion and uncertainty the skulls have
caused, scientists speak in superlatives of their potential for
revealing crucial insights in the evidence-disadvantaged field of
The African skull dates from nearly 7 million years ago, close to
the fateful moment when the human and chimpanzee lineages went their
separate ways. The 1.75-million-year-old Georgian skull could answer
questions about the first human ancestors to leave Africa, and why
they ventured forth.
Still, it was a shock, something of a one-two punch, for two such
momentous discoveries to be reported independently in a single week,
as happened in July.
"I can't think of another month in the history of paleontology in
which two such finds of importance were published," said Dr. Bernard
Wood, a paleontologist at George Washington University. "This really
exposes how little we know of human evolution and the origin of our
own genus Homo."
Every decade or two, a fossil discovery upsets conventional wisdom.
One more possible "missing link" emerges. An even older member of
the hominid group, those human ancestors and their close relatives
(but not apes), comes to light. Some fossils also show up with
attributes so puzzling that scientists cannot decide where they
belong, if at all, in the human lineage.
At each turn, the family tree, once drawn straight as a ponderosa
pine, has had to be reconfigured with more branches leading here and
there and, in some cases, apparently nowhere.
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like
a ladder," Dr. Wood said. The ladder, he explained, stepped from
monkey to modern human through a progression of intermediates, each
slightly less apelike than the previous one.
But the fact that modern Homo sapiens is the only hominid living
today is quite misleading, an exception to the rule dating only
since the demise of Neanderthals some 30,000 years ago. Fossil
hunters keep finding multiple species of hominids that overlapped in
time, reflecting evolutionary diversity in response to new or
changed circumstances. Not all of them could be direct ancestors of
Homo sapiens. Some presumably were dead-end side branches.
So a tangled bush has now replaced a tree as the ascendant imagery
of human evolution. Most scientists studying the newfound African
skull think it lends strong support to hominid bushiness almost from
That is one of several reasons Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, a biological
anthropologist at Harvard, called the African specimen "one of the
greatest paleontological discoveries of the past 100 years."
The skull was uncovered in the desert of Chad by a French-led team
under the direction of Dr. Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers. Struck by the skull's unusual mix of apelike and evolved
hominid features, the discoverers assigned it to an entirely new
genus and species — Sahelanthropus tchadensis. It is more commonly
called Toumai, meaning "hope of life" in the local language.
In announcing the discovery in the July 11 issue of the journal
Nature, Dr. Brunet's group said the fossils — a cranium, two lower
jaw fragments and several teeth — promised "to illuminate the
earliest chapter in human evolutionary history."
The age, face and geography of the new specimen were all surprises.
About a million years older than any previously recognized hominid,
Toumai lived close to the time that molecular biologists think was
the earliest period in which the human lineage diverged from the
chimpanzee branch. The next oldest hominid appears to be the
6-million-year-old Orrorin tugenensis, found two years ago in Kenya
but not yet fully accepted by many scientists. After it is
Ardipithecus ramidus, which probably lived 4.4 million to 5.8
million years ago in Ethiopia.
"A lot of interesting things were happening earlier than we
previously knew," said Dr. Eric Delson, a paleontologist at the City
University of New York and the American Museum of Natural History.
The most puzzling aspect of the new skull is that it seems to belong
to two widely separated evolutionary periods. Its size indicates
that Toumai had a brain comparable to that of a modern chimp, about
320 to 380 cubic centimeters. Yet the face is short and relatively
flat, compared with the protruding faces of chimps and other early
hominids. Indeed, it is more humanlike than the "Lucy" species,
Australopithecus afarensis, which lived more than 3.2 million years
"A hominid of this age,"
Dr. Wood wrote in Nature, "should certainly
not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological
Scientists suggest several possible explanations.
somehow be an ancestor of modern humans, or of gorillas or chimps.
It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimps, before the
"But why restrict yourself to thinking this fossil has to belong to
a lineage that leads to something modern?" Dr. Wood asked. "It's
perfectly possible this belongs to a branch that's neither chimp nor
human, but has become extinct."
Dr. Wood said the "lesson of history" is that fossil hunters are
more likely to find something unrelated directly to living creatures
— more side branches to tangle the evolutionary bush. So the picture
of human genealogy gets more complex, not simpler.
A few scientists sound cautionary notes. Dr. Delson questioned
whether the Toumai face was complete enough to justify
interpretations of more highly evolved characteristics. One critic
argued that the skull belonged to a gorilla, but that is disputed by
scientists who have examined it.
Just as important perhaps is the fact that the Chad skull was found
off the beaten path of hominid research. Until now, nearly every
early hominid fossil has come from eastern Africa, mainly Ethiopia,
Kenya and Tanzania, or from southern Africa. Finding something very
old and different in central Africa should expand the hunt.
"In hindsight, we should have expected this,"
Dr. Lieberman said.
"Africa is big and we weren't looking at all of Africa. This fossil
is a wake-up call. It reminds us that we're missing large portions
of the fossil record."
Although overshadowed by the news of Toumai, the well-preserved
1.75-million-year-old skull from Georgia was also full of surprises,
in this case concerning a later chapter in the hominid story. It
raised questions about the identity of the first hominids to be
intercontinental travelers, who set in motion the migrations that
would eventually lead to human occupation of the entire planet.
The discovery, reported in the July 5 issue of the journal Science,
was made at the medieval town Dmanisi, 50 miles southwest of
Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. Two years ago, scientists announced
finding two other skulls at the same site, but the new one appears
to be intriguingly different and a challenge to prevailing views.
Scientists have long been thought that the first hominid
out-of-Africa migrants were Homo erectus, a species with large
brains and a stature approaching human dimensions. The species was
widely assumed to have stepped out in the world once they evolved
their greater intelligence and longer legs and invented more
advanced stone tools.
The first two Dmanisi skulls confirmed one part of the hypothesis.
They bore a striking resemblance to the African version of H.
erectus, sometimes called Homo ergaster. Their discovery was hailed
as the most ancient undisputed hominid fossils outside Africa.
But the skulls were associated with more than 1,000 crudely chipped
cobbles, simple choppers and scrapers, not the more finely shaped
and versatile tools that would be introduced by H. erectus more than
100,000 years later. That undercut the accepted evolutionary
explanation for the migrations.
The issue has become even more muddled with the discovery of the
third skull by international paleontologists led by Dr. David
Lordkipanidze of the Georgian State Museum in Tbilisi. It is about
the same age and bears an overall resemblance to the other two
skulls. But it is much smaller.
"These hominids are more primitive than we thought,"
Dr. Lordkipanidze said in an article in the current issue of National
Geographic magazine. "We have a new puzzle."
To the discoverers, the skull has the canine teeth and face of
Homo habilis, a small hominid with long apelike arms that evolved in
Africa before H. erectus. And the size of its cranium suggests a
substantially smaller brain than expected for H. erectus.
In their journal report, the discovery team estimated the cranial
capacity of the new skull to be about 600 cubic centimeters,
compared with about 780 and 650 c.c.'s for the other Dmanisis
specimens. That is "near the mean" for H. habilis, they noted.
Modern human braincases are about 1,400 cubic centimeters.
Dr. G. Philip Rightmire, a paleontologist at the State University of
New York at Binghamton and a member of the discovery team, said that
if the new skull had been found before the other two, it might have
been identified as H. habilis.
Dr. Ian Tattersall, a specialist in human evolution at the natural
history museum in New York City, said the specimen was "the first
truly African-looking thing to come from outside Africa." More than
anything else, he said, it resembles a 1.9-million-year-old Homo
habilis skull from Kenya.
For the time being, however, the fossil is tentatively labeled Homo
erectus, though it stretches the definition of that species.
Scientists are pondering what lessons they can learn from it about
the diversity of physical attributes within a single species.
Dr. Fred Smith, a paleontologist who has just become dean of arts
and sciences at Loyola University in Chicago, agreed that his was a
sensible approach, at least until more fossils turn up. Like other
scientists, he doubted that two separate hominid species would have
occupied the same habitat at roughly the same time. Marked
variations within a species are not uncommon; brain size varies
within living humans by abut 15 percent.
"The possibility of variations within a species should never be
excluded," Dr. Smith said. "There's a tendency now for everybody to
see three bumps on a fossil instead of two and immediately declare
that to be another species."
Some discoverers of the Dmanisi skull speculated that these hominids
might be descended from ancestors like H. habilis that had already
left Africa. In that case, it could be argued that H. erectus itself
evolved not in Africa but elsewhere from an ex-African species. If
so, the early Homo genealogy would have to be drastically revised.
click image to
But it takes more than two or even three specimens to reach firm
conclusions about the range of variations within a species. Still,
Georgia is a good place to start. The three specimens found there
represent the largest collection of individuals from any single site
older than around 800,000 years.
"We have now a very rich collection, of three skulls and three
jawbones, which gives us a chance to study very properly this
question" of how to classify early hominids, Dr. Lordkipanidze said,
and paleontologists are busy this summer looking for more skulls at
"We badly want to know what the functional abilities of the first
out-of-Africa migrants were," said Dr. Wood of George Washington
University. "What could that animal do that animals that preceded it
couldn't? What was the role of culture in this migration? Maybe
other animals were leaving and the hominids simply followed."
All scholars of human prehistory eagerly await the next finds from
Dmanisi, and in Chad. Perhaps they will help untangle some of the
bushy branches of the human family tree to reveal the true ancestry
of Homo sapiens.