Tag: Fossil cranium

Advances in hominin evolution

Published on by zooks7772 Comments

For decades, most of the news concerning our deep ancestry emerged from discoveries in sub-Saharan Africa at sites in Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Ethiopia. The first week of 2026 decisively shifted that focus northwards to Chad and Morocco in two separate publications.

In 2002 ago the world of palaeoanthropology was in turmoil following the first discovery of fragments of what was then thought to be a hominid, or great-ape, cranium in Chad dated at around 7 Ma ago (Brunet, M. and 37 others 2002. A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, central Africa. Nature, v. 4418, p. 145-151;DOI:10.1038/nature00879). When pieced together the cranium looked like a cross between that of a chimpanzee and an australopithecine. Some suggested that the creature may have been a ‘missing link’ between the hominids and hominins; perhaps the ultimate ancestor of humans. Sahelanthropus tchadensis (nicknamedToumaï­ or ‘hope of life’ in the local Goran language) was undoubtedly enigmatic. The ‘molecular-clock’ age estimate for the branching of hominins from a common ancestor with chimpanzees was, in 2002, judged to be two million years later the dating of Sahelanthropus, so controversy was inevitable. Another point of contention was the size of Sahelanthropus’s canine teeth: too large for australopithecines and humans, but more appropriate for a gorilla or chimp. Moreover, Toumaï­ showed no indisputable evidence for having been bipedal. The Chadian site subsequently yielded three lower jaw bones and a collection of teeth, a partial femur (leg bone) and three fragmentary ulnae (forearm bones). The finds suggested that as many as five individuals had been fossilised. The femur gave an unresolved hint of an upright gait, yet the ulnas suggested Toumaï­ might equally have been arboreal; as could also be said for the australopithecines.

Reconstructed skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. (Credit: Didier Descouens, University of Toulouse)

All the limb bones of Toumaï­have now been anatomically compared with those of hominins and apes (Williams S.A. et al. 2026. Earliest evidence of hominin bipedalism in Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Science Advances, v. 12, article eadv0130; DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adv0130). Scott Williams of New York University and co-workers from other US institutions show that although the leg bones are much the same size as those of chimpanzees, their proportions were more like those of hominins. They also showed features around the knees and hips needed for bipedalism and an insertion point for a tendon for the gluteus maximus muscle (buttock) vital for sustained upright locomotion, similar to the femurs of Orrorin tugenensis (see: Orrorin walked the walk; May 2008) and Ardipithecus ramidus. Unfortunately, an intact Sahelanthropus cranium showing a foramen magnum – where the skull attaches to the spine – continues to elude field workers. Its position distinguishes upright gait definitively.

See also: This ancient fossil could rewrite the story of human origins.  Science Daily, January 3, 2026)

The second new advance concerns the joint ancestry of Neanderthals, Denisovans and anatomically modern humans (AMH), whose ancient genetics crudely suggest a last common ancestor living between 765 to 550 ka. This had previously been attributed to Homo antecessor found in the Gran Dolina cave at Atapuerca in northern Spain, roughly dated between 950 ka and 770 ka. (Incidentally, Gran Dolina has yielded plausible evidence of cannibalism). A novel possibility stems from hominin fossils excavated from a cave in raised-beach sediments near Casablanca in Morocco (Hublin, JJ. and 28 others, 2026  Early hominins from Morocco basal to the Homo sapiens lineage. Nature, v. 649 ; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09914-y). The fossil-bearing sediments contain evidence for a shift in the Earth’s magnetic field (the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal) dated at 773 ka, much more precisely than the Atapuerca age span for H. antecessor. Jean-Jacques Hublin of CNRS in Paris and his multinational colleagues report that the fossils are similar in age to H. antecessor, yet are morphologically distinct, displaying a combination of primitive traits and of ‘derived features reminiscent of’ later Neanderthal, Denisovan and AMH fossils. The differences and shared features suggest that there may have been genetic exchanges between the Moroccan and Iberian population over a considerable period. The most obvious route would have been across the Straits of Gibraltar, but would have required some kind of water craft.  An important question is ‘which population gave rise to the other?’

Artistic reconstruction of a juvenile Homo antecessor, Based on skeletal remains from Gran Dolina Cave

Larger and more robust hominin remains in Algeria dated at 1,000 ka – H. heidelbergensis? – resemble those found near Casablanca. They may have evolved to the latter. Similar possible progenitors to Iberian Homo antecessor have yet to be found in Western Europe. Homo erectus appeared in Georgia and Romania between 2.0 and 1.9 Ma, but the intervening million years or more have yielded no credible European forebears of H. antecessor. For the moment, incursion of a North African population into Europe followed by sustained contact is Hublin et al’s favoured hypothesis, rather than a European origin for Homo antecessor. For Neanderthals and Denisovans to have originated from such an African group, as has been suggested, requires finds of African fossils with plausible resemblance to what are predominantly Eurasian groups. The Iberian population migrated far and wide in Western Europe, as witnessed by stone tools and footprints dating to between 950 to 850 ka in eastern England. So it is equally possible that the Iberian group were progenitors of Neanderthals and Denisovans in Eurasia itself. At least for the moment, ancient genomes of the two H. antecessor groups are unlikely to be found in either Iberian or African fossils of the same antiquity. But, as usual, that will not stifle debate: a resort to the adage ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ seems appropriate to several research teams!

The oldest anatomically modern human fossils dated at ~300 ka, were also discovered in Morocco (see: Origin of anatomically modern humans, June 2017). Their isolation in the NW corner of the African continent poses a similar conundrum, as since then such beings went on to occupy wide areas of sub-Saharan Africa and then the world.

Massive hominin skull from China: is it a Denisovan?

Published on by zooks777Leave a comment

In 1933 labourers unearthed a very large skull during the construction of a bridge near Harbin, Northern China. At that time, the area was under occupation by Imperial Japanese forces. To keep it out of the invaders’ hands the skull was quickly wrapped in a cloth and hidden in an old well. It was only in 2018 that the original finder’s grandson recovered it to pass on to archaeologists at  Hebei Geo University. It lacks a lower jawbone, so technically it is a cranium, but is very well preserved. The face has very large brow ridges – generally taken as a primitive feature – but also some more modern features. With a 1,420 ml brain case, it is significantly larger than most modern human crania. Apparently, it is of an adult male. As well as a big head, he had a large nose, as do Neanderthals: a possible adaptation to very cold conditions. Without waiting to see if the bones might yield DNA, five of the team who examined the cranium claimed it as a new species, Homo longi or ‘Dragon Man’; i.e. distinct from modern humans and Neanderthals and all known older hominins (Ni, X. et al. 2021. Massive cranium from Harbin establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage in China. The Innovation, v. 2, article 100130; DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. Ji, Q. et al. 2021. Late Middle Pleistocene Harbin cranium represents a new Homo species. The Innovation, v. 2, article 100132; DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132). They based this phylogenetic interpretation on morphology alone. At least one of the team, Chris Stringer a leading hominin palaeoanthropologist at The Natural History Museum in London, demurred. The cranium is not unique and bears close similarity to another from the central Chinese province of Shaanxi, which was found in the late 1970s. In fact there are three other Chinese crania that resemble that from Harbin, although they are less well preserved.

All-sided views of the Harbin cranium. (Credit: Ni et al., Fig 2)

Dating the fossil was not easy, as the site where labourers discovered him was destroyed during construction of the bridge. Researchers used a variety of geochemical analyses, including from sediment stuck in his nasal cavity, to derive a likely stratigraphic profile from which the cranium may have been excavated. The best fit is with Middle Pleistocene sediments in the Harbin area. Uranium-series dating of the bone suggests that it is older than 146 ka (Shao, Q.  et al. 2021. Geochemical locating and direct dating of the Harbin archaic human cranium.  The Innovation, v. 2, article 100131; DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100131). So it is likely that this man and his companions did not cohabit China with anatomically modern humans, who arrived no more than about 50 ka ago. The highly robust nature of all the similar crania suggests that the individuals must have been large and physically active. Like the Neanderthals, they had adapted to harsh conditions over several hundred thousand years of repeated climate change. Even today, winters in northern China average around -16°C, and far inland conditions are semi-arid to arid. For them to migrate would have involved traversing some of highest, bleakest passes in the world. These people evolved to survive extreme climatic and environmental change, much as did the Neanderthals in West Asia and Europe. By comparison anatomically modern humans evolved in the more stable environments of Africa and the Middle East, surviving only the last ice age once they had migrated northwards. Those who made it to northern Siberia and crossed the Bering Strait via Beringia around the last glacial maximum did evolve physical traits that helped them survive, but minor ones compared with the earlier humans.

So what do these Chinese fossils represent? Using cranial features alone to propose distinct species smacks of the techniques of 19th and early 20th century anatomical anthropologists, albeit with powerful statistical analysis. We know that anatomically modern humans carry genetic signatures of interbreeding with at least two known ‘species’ with whom they cohabited Eurasia – Neanderthals and Denisovans. Indeed, traces in  the DNA of living African and Eurasian humans hint at other unknown and probably very ancient ‘ghost’ populations. Genetic, physical and probably cultural differences did not deter repeated interbreeding with these ‘others’. To be frank, erecting new human ‘species’ these days seems to serve little purpose. ‘Dragon Man’ is just as likely to represent the Denisovans as the fully sequenced DNA from a couple of bones from caves in Siberia and Tibet. The latter matched stretches of the DNA from living people of East Asia and parts of the Pacific. There are no other such live genetic tracers awaiting a different candidate to fill the role that we know Neanderthals and Denisovans to have filled. That may yet change, but the first job for the mainly Chinese consortium of scientists is to get genetic material from these crania and sequence it, or invite other highly successful palaeogeneticists who would leap at the opportunity.

See also: Jones, N. 2021. Mysterious skull fossils expand human family tree — but questions remain. Nature, v. 595, p. 50; DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-01738-w

Sample I. 2021. Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution. The Guardian, 25 June 2021.