Skip to main content

This site is using cookies to collect anonymous visitor statistics and enhance the user experience. OK | Find out more

PEO header
Main content

News

Our ancestors walked upright two million years earlier than thought

20 July 2011, by Tamera Jones

Our ancestors 'almost certainly' walked upright, just like we do, nearly four million years ago – two million years earlier than previously thought, say researchers.

Prehistoric footprints

Prehistoric footprints.

An international team of scientists analysed a track of ancient footprints at Laetoli in Tanzania and concluded that the feet of whoever made them already had most of the features considered essential for an upright gait.

The footprints' maker could push off the ground using their forefoot, instead of using the middle part of the foot, like today's great apes do.

'They show a type of walking that was fully upright and that was driven by the front of the foot, particularly the big toe,' says Professor Robin Crompton from the University of Liverpool, who led the study.

This means the way the likely printmaker walked was closer to our own gait than that of chimpanzees, orang-utans or gorillas.

Researchers think that being able to push off the big toe and being able to walk upright would ultimately have helped our ancestors expand out of Africa and colonise the world.

Until now, most scientists thought these characteristics only emerged in early Homo species around 1.9 million years ago.

'There's no evidence for another hominid existing four million years ago, so it's probably Australopithecus afarensis.'
Professor Robin Crompton, University of Liverpool

The site at Laetoli contains 11 individual footprints, which are 3.66 million years old. Despite their age, the prints are in good condition, and are the earliest known trail made by human ancestors. But trying to figure out the gait of the human ancestor who made them has eluded scientists since they were found in 1974. Previous studies have tended to focus on single footprints , which, says Crompton, are liable to misinterpretation.

'Earlier research on these footprints has looked at single prints, but this approach is prone to error, because of random damage by plant roots, animals and erosion, on top of the variation in foot placement and ground texture from one step to the next,' he says.

To settle the longstanding argument over the gait of their likely maker, Crompton and his colleagues used a new statistical technique, based on methods used in MRI brain imaging, to get a 3D average of 11 of them.

'It was clear to us that we had to look at the central tendency for all 11 prints,' explains Crompton.

They then compared this with data from experimental studies of footprint formation and underfoot pressures generated by modern humans and other great apes while walking. Computer simulation helped them predict the footprints that would have been formed by different types of gait.

Now Crompton and his team say the most likely printmaker was a species called Australopithecus afarensis, which, until now, most scientists thought walked with a crouched posture, and had a foot which worked more like an ape's than a human's.

'There's no evidence for another hominid existing four million years ago, so it's probably Australopithecus afarensis,' Crompton says. 'This human ancestor most probably still used the trees as well as the ground.'

While the study shows that the maker's gait was fully upright, the upper body of Australopithecus afarensis wasn't like ours at all. Instead of having long legs and a short body like modern humans the printmaker would've had the opposite physical build: short legs and a long body.

'This makes it likely that it could only walk or run effectively over short distances,' says Crompton. 'Now we need to figure out when our ancestors could first walk or run the long distances we can today.'

'This is the strongest evidence yet to support the idea that the footprints point to a surprisingly modern foot function,' he adds.

The research is described in Interface, a journal of the Royal Society.

The following was added on 21 July
It turns out that this research has led to a worldwide patent. The image-analysis software the team developed and used in their research could be used in any foot-pressure analysis.

'This means there are applications for airport security, police forensics, and clinical problems of the feet of all kinds,' explains Crompton.


Robin H. Crompton, Todd C. Pataky, Russell Savage, Kristiaan D'Août, Matthew R. Bennett, Michael H. Day, Karl Bates, Sarita Morse and William I. Sellers, Human-like external function of the foot, and fully upright gait, confirmed in the 3.66 Mya-old Laetoli hominin footprints by topographic statistics, experimental footprint-formation and computer simulation, Interface a journal of the Royal Society, published online 20 July 2011, doi:10.1098/rsif.2011.0258


Keywords: , , ,


Interesting? Spread the word using the 'share' menu on the top right.


Your comments

Who pays for the discovery of this totally useless information ?

Gordon Malkin, Macclesfield Cheshire
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 - 15:20

I am proud of our ancestor, they creative a new culture in the ancient times. Human is a kind of advanced creature,and inheritage too many characteristics from apes.

Above all,expection all these information which had been pointed,I also want to get extra more or less.

OuLingzi, China
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 - 16:28

Glad to see Cheshire, the dreariest county in Britain, is still producing idiots on a grand scale.

John Sexton, Beijing
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 - 16:57

What's new? These footprints were reported nearly 40 years ago. They are attributed to Australopithecus afarensis, because "There's no evidence for another hominid existing four million years ago." Since they look exactly like modern human prints, why not attribute them to humans? Surely that's the truly scientific conclusion, based on all that we know about human feet and apes' feet? The reason is, of course, that to have humans living that long ago would not fit the evolution theory, so whatever the evidence says, the theory has to come before the facts. And suppose the prints aren't so old after all? Again, unthinkable!

Geoff.mead, United Kingdom
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 - 17:48

I would have thought with tuition fees soaring and research grants as rare as avian pigs, certain anthropology departments could have found something more helpful that to rediscover Mary Leakey's footprints of the nineteen-seventies.
I love this quote:
"Researchers think that being able to push off the big toe and being able to walk upright would ultimately have helped our ancestors expand out of Africa and colonise the world.

I would have thought that a strong pair of legs would help as well a big toe.

What a disgrace!

Dr. Derek P. Blake, Lesvos, Greece
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 - 19:24

It is very trying to witness how some scientists bolster the idea of human evolution as if it is an established fact. Adding millions of years to the supposed age of man does not make it true. Why does man have to have a naturalistic origin? The majority
are sceptical of these desperate efforts.

b gale, southampton
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 - 21:42

Why do these people subscribe to PE? 'Cause it tells them something they don't know? Not these 'know-it-alls'. 'Cause it challenges their preconceived notions? Obviously PE isn't up to that job! 'Cause it's relevant to their interests?
There's lots of places I'd rather be than smoggy, oppressive Beijing, but I don't doubt its research capability for all that. And after 2000+ years of bumbling deistic exegesis, its a breath of fresh air to hear that hominins were capable of standing on their own two feet without the help of some deus ex machina gobbledefgook.

Neil Campling, Darlington
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 14:59

To echo a previous comment, this is really really old news.

Donald Johanson discovered Lucy almost 40 years ago. The Laetoli footprints were found by the Mary Leaky group approximately the same time as I recall.
At that time both finds were dated at well over 3 Millions years old, and both confirmed the upright gate of Afarensis. Later finds pushed back the age of Afarensis to the 4 Million year level as I recall.

In response to your subtitle "This is two million years earlier than previously thought": who thought that and are they paleontologists?

Alf Higgins, USA
Wednesday, 10 August 2011 - 21:11