Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUSTAINABILITY Citizens and POLICY End the bureaucracy THEATRE Shakespeare’s ENVIRONMENT James Lovelock
businesses must track that is holding back science world was steeped in on surprisingly optimistic
governments’ progress p.33 in India p.36 practical discovery p.39 form p.41
BETTING ON AFRICA
Until the 1960s, H. erectus had been found
only in Asia. But when primitive stone-chop
ping tools were uncovered at Olduvai Gorge
in Tanzania, Leakey became convinced that
this is where he would find the earliest stone-
tool makers, who he assumed would belong to
our genus. Maybe, like the australopiths, our
human ancestors also originated in Africa.
In 1931, Leakey began intensive prospect
ing and excavation at Olduvai Gorge, 33 years
before he announced the new human species.
Now tourists travel to Olduvai on paved roads
in air-conditioned buses; in the 1930s in the
rainy season, the journey from Nairobi could
take weeks. The ravines at Olduvai offered
unparalleled access to ancient strata, but field
work was no picnic in the park. Water was
often scarce. Leakey and his team had to learn
Homo habilis
But these were milk teeth, which are not as
easy to link to taxa as permanent teeth. The
team’s persistence was rewarded in 1959,
when archaeologist Mary Leakey, Louis’s
wife, recovered the cranium of a young adult.
Bernard Wood explains why the announcement of The specimen still boggles the mind because
‘handy man’ in April 1964 threw the field of hominin it is so strange: its small brain, large face,
tiny canines and massive, thumbnail-sized
evolution into a turmoil that continues to this day. chewing teeth were not at all like those of
H. erectus. Its big molars earned it the nick
name ‘Nutcracker Man’.
H
alf a century ago, the British–Kenyan to this day. Even with all the fossil evidence Because Nutcracker Man was found in the
palaeoanthropologist Louis Leakey and analytical techniques from the past same layers as the stone tools, the Leakeys
and his colleagues made a contro 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the assumed that it was the toolmaker, despite its
versial proposal: a collection of fossils from origin of Homo remains elusive. odd appearance. But when Louis announced
the Great Rift Valley in Tanzania belonged In 1960, the twig of the tree of life that the discovery, he was not tempted to expand
to a new species within our own genus1. The contains hominins — modern humans, the definition of Homo. That would have
announcement of Homo habilis was a turn their ancestors, and other forms more closely eliminated any meaningful distinction
ing point in palaeoanthropology. It shifted related to humans than to chimpanzees and between humans and australopiths. Instead
the search for the first humans from Asia to bonobos — looked remarkably straight he erected a new genus and species, Zinjan-
Africa and began a controversy that endures forward. At its base was Australopithecus, thropus boisei (now called Paranthropus
3 A P R I L 2 0 1 4 | VO L 5 0 8 | NAT U R E | 3 1
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
COMMENT
AUSTRALOPITHECUS: SABENA JANE BLACKBIRD/ALAMY; H. HABILIS: HUMAN ORIGINS PROGRAM/SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION; P. BOISEI:
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY; H. NEANDERTHALENSIS: JAVIER TRUEBA/MSF/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Homo sapiens
WHO WAS RELATED Some would lump all early
Homo species into Homo
Homo heidelbergensis
TO WHOM?
Homo antecessor Denisovans
erectus; others would split some
into a new non-Homo genus. Homo floresiensis
Fifty years ago, the introduction of
Homo habilis shook up views of our Homo neanderthalensis
genus, and the classification of Homo ergaster/erectus
early Homo is still debated. Paranthropus boisei
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus afarensis
boisei), to accommodate it (see ‘Who was (around 600 cubic centimetres) of H. habilis. so easily shoe-horned into a single species as
related to whom?’). The proposal was met with considerable those from Olduvai3. I concluded that there
In 1960, Jonathan Leakey, Louis and scepticism. Some thought that the fossils were were two distinct types of face within early
Mary’s eldest son, found the lower jaw and too similar to Australopithecus africanus to Homo4, and so in 1992, I suggested that a sec
the top of the head of a juvenile hominin. justify a new species. John Robinson, a lead ond early Homo species, Homo rudolfensis,
Dubbed Johnny’s Child, it very definitely did ing authority on australopiths, suggested that should be recognized5. Two decades later, a
not belong to the same species as ‘Zinj’, and H. habilis was a mix of earlier A. africanus team led by palaeontologist Meave Leakey
the Leakeys began to suspect that it was the and later H. erectus bones. Other research (Richard’s wife) confirmed6 the ‘two-taxon’
real toolmaker. ers agreed that the species was new. Very few hypothesis I had proposed, using a face and
Phillip Tobias, a palaeoanthropologist accepted that it was the earliest human. two lower jaws found at Koobi Fora. But
known for his work in South Africa, had Subsequent finds shaped the debate. A they — correctly, I believe — refuted my sug
already been recruited to analyse Zinj, so the crushed cranium (dubbed Twiggy) from gestion about which jaws went with which
Leakeys turned to him to analyse the juvenile the lowest strata at Olduvai nixed Robin faces. As ever in palaeontology, new fossils
cranium. John Napier, a specialist in hand son’s argument that H. habilis was a mix of test and refine old ideas.
anatomy (as well as sleight-of-hand magic an australopith and H. erectus. Another skel
tricks) was recruited to examine wrist and eton indicated that H. habilis had a stronger DRAWING THE LINE
hand bones found with the skull. and relatively longer (or more ape-like) upper In 1999, British anthropologist Mark Collard
An adult foot was excavated along with limb than did H. erectus and its ilk. and I looked7 afresh at the boundary between
Johnny’s Child, and three years later, a cra A handful of additional specimens from Homo and more-primitive hominins by
nium with both the upper and lower jaw was Ethiopia to South Africa have since been focusing on features that hint at body size,
uncovered, as was a very fragmented cranium added to H. habilis; the biggest contribution posture, locomotion, diet and life history.
with well-preserved teeth. Napier had already to early Homo has come from Koobi Fora in For example, how long is the upper limb
convinced himself that the juvenile hand Kenya. I have been involved with H. habilis compared with the lower, or the forearm com
bones were like those of modern humans. My for all but two of its 50 years, starting in 1966, pared with the upper arm? Do molar teeth
PhD supervisor, Michael Day at the Univer when I analysed the ankle bone excavated erupt early, as in apes, or form slowly and
sity of London had come to the same conclu alongside Johnny’s Child. Far from being like dawdle in the jaw, as in modern humans? All
sion about the foot. And Tobias was certain that of modern humans, the bone is a much are attributes that help to reveal how an ani
that neither the long crowns of the chewing better match for an australopith. Other fea mal makes its living and allocates its energy.
teeth in the lower jaw nor the large brain case tures of H. habilis have also turned out to be Although H. habilis is generally larger than
could belong to the australopiths known from less like those of modern humans than Louis A. africanus, its teeth and jaws have the same
southern Africa. and his team suggested. proportions. What little evidence there is
In the mid-1970s, Louis and Mary’s sec about its body shape, hands and feet suggest
HANDY HYPOTHESES ond son, Richard, offered me the challenge of that H. habilis would be a much better climber
Thus, in a paper published in Nature in making sense of the early Homo skulls, crania than undisputed human ancestors. So, if
April 1964 (ref. 1), Louis, Tobias and Napier and jaws from Koobi Fora. It was a lonely task H. habilis is added to Homo, the genus has
made the case for adding the ‘handy man’ to involving 15 years poring over australopiths an incoherent mishmash of features. Others
the genus Homo as H. habilis. They argued and H. erectus fossils in museums around disagree, but I think you have to cherry-pick
that the Olduvai fossils met three key crite the world. It was tempting to focus on the the data8 to come to any other conclusion. My
ria set out in an influential 1955 definition better-preserved specimens, but more often sense is that handy man should belong to its
of Homo2: an upright posture, a bipedal gait than not it was a skull fragment here or a bro own genus, neither australopith nor human.
and the dexterity to fashion primitive stone ken tooth there that provided the key clues to Beautifully preserved fossils from the
tools. The team had to relax a brain-size making sense of the whole collection. Caucasus have now been added to the mix.
criterion to accommodate the smaller brain Variation in the Koobi Fora fossils was not Just last year, Georgian anthropologist
3 2 | NAT U R E | VO L 5 0 8 | 3 A P R I L 2 0 1 4
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
COMMENT
Mobilize
stage of human evolution is looking less
and less likely. Our ancestors probably
evolved in Africa, but the birthplace of
our genus could be far from the Great Rift
citizens to track
Valley, where most of the fossil evidence
has been found. The Leakeys’ iconic dis
coveries at Olduvai Gorge should remind
us of how much we don’t know, rather
sustainability
than how much we do. ■
U
Endocasts and Teeth of Homo habilis
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991). nited Nations negotiators are meeting The variety of global environmental
4. Wood, B. A. Koobi Fora Research Project, in New York this week to shape up information that will be needed raises
Volume 4: Hominid Cranial Remains
(Clarendon Press, 1991). the Sustainable Development Goals daunting challenges. Official data sets are
5. Wood, B. A. Nature 355, 783–790 (1992). (SDGs) that will replace the Millennium not up to the task. We have found prob
6. Leakey, M. G. et al. Nature 488, 201–204 Development Goals (MDGs) after 2015. The lems with government-reported sources
(2012).
7. Wood, B. A. & Collard, M. Science 284, 65–71 scope of the SDGs — from providing uni in nearly every global data set that we
(1999). versal access to energy and water to ending have used in 15 years of constructing
8. Holliday, T. W. Curr. Anthropol. 53, S330– poverty by 2030 — is being well articulated. the Environmental Performance Index
S345 (2012).
9. Lordkipanidze, D. et al. Science 342, But there has been little discussion about how (EPI) — a biennial ranking of how well
326–331 (2013). countries will monitor that progress. countries are implementing policies
3 A P R I L 2 0 1 4 | VO L 5 0 8 | NAT U R E | 3 3
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved