HUMAN Key Art | ©2025 PBS

The five-part documentary series HUMAN, a collaboration between PBS and the BBC, is running Wednesday nights on PBS’s NOVA and is thereafter available on PBS’s on-demand and streaming platforms.

HUMAN examines the evolution and lives of the earliest human species – of which, it turns out, there were more than just homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

The series is hosted by British paleoanthropologist and evolutionary biologist Ella al-Shamahi, a frequent contributor to science programs.

Al-Shamahi gets on a Zoom call to discuss all things HUMAN.

First of all, in layman’s terms, just what is a paleoanthropologist and an evolutionary biologist?

“I study ancient, ancient humans. I wouldn’t generally wake up for [be interested in] the Romans, for example. They have to be truly old. Imagine a Venn diagram. You’ve got Ross from FRIENDS on one side, you’ve got Indiana Jones on the other – in my imaginary world, we’re in the middle,” al-Shamahi laughs, “so we basically do archaeology, but the kind of archaeology that’s so old, it’s fossilized. I personally am a Neanderthal specialist, but you can be a paleo-anthropologist and just look at homo sapiens [the current human species, i.e., us] as well, but it would just be the really old ones.”

There are likely to be whole new categories of specialists in light of revelations covered in HUMAN. “We think that there were at least six other human species. I actually think the number is probably much higher, that [as new research comes in, the known number] will get higher over the coming years.”

Lately, there has been news about apparent interbreeding between Neanderthals and homo sapiens, something also covered in HUMAN.

“I sadly had nothing to do with that research, which was upsetting, because it was a very, very exciting thing. There has been a long discussion in our field as to whether we and the Neanderthals ever interbred, which is really just a fancy way of saying ‘had sex.’ And for the longest time, most people thought that was not the case.”

However, al-Shamahi continues, “Around 2010, the genetic evidence got much stronger and they were able to prove that, actually, we did interbreed with Neanderthals. And it looks like it wasn’t a one-off. There were many, many scandals in the family, it turns out.”

Al-Shamahi observes, “There are a number of remarkable things about that. One is that everybody from outside sub-Saharan Africa, and even some people within sub-Saharan Africa, have some Neanderthal DNA in them. But we now also know that we were also interbreeding with quite a few of those other human species that were around at the same time.”

So far as we know, the only remaining human species is homo sapiens. Is it normal for a group of species to dwindle down to one, when it seems that often one species evolves into many?

“First of all, it’s worth saying that, in nature, you get it both ways frequently. You get loads of examples where there were lots and lots and lots of different kinds of species within the same genus, and then you end up with one, and the reverse is also true, where you only had one or two at the start, and then you end up with loads.

“What’s interesting in our case is the way we have told our story. Most people assume that when we turned up on the scene, we were this magnificent, glorious species, and nobody else stood a chance, and it was written in the stars, and we were always destined for greatness. There’s that old saying that history is written by the victors. In this particular case, we’re not just victorious – the other species are all extinct. They literally can’t defend themselves. And so, it’s suited us to portray ourselves as the pinnacle of human evolution.

“But actually, the more we learn, the more we realize that we were not that exceptional to start off with. In fact, I would argue that we were the underdog. For most of our history, if you were to line us up with those other [proto-human] species, and you were to ask who was going to make it, you wouldn’t necessarily put your money on us at all. We became the species that we are today. It is remarkable to think that, yes, we started in a world of many species as the underdog, and now we’re the only ones left and clearly the most dominant form of life on Earth. We succeeded in a way which no other species has ever succeeded.”

And this is largely what HUMAN is about.

“It’s a bit like a revisionist history. I think what we’re desperate to do is to tell the actual story of our originals that we know so far, based on science. I happen to think, and the team happens to think, that it is a magnificent story. I would argue that our story is the most exceptional story ever.

“I’ve never fully understood why the public haven’t been told. What’s been really interesting to see – the show has just gone out in the U.K., and it captured people’s imaginations to such a remarkable extent, it became a summer hit in the U.K., and people were really surprised, because they were like, ‘Oh, my gosh, yes, that is a bit like a LORD OF THE RINGS-type world and we weren’t that exceptional. And then we became who we are today, and we somehow won out.’ And it is moving, it’s very thoughtful. It makes you wonder.

I often say that I don’t really know what to make of our species, because on the one side, you can’t help but be impressed by the inventiveness, the resourcefulness, the resilience of our ancestors. If they hadn’t have been so brilliant and so successful, realistically, we would not be here – at least, most of us would not be here. On the flip side, they’re so successful, they’re so brilliant, that it does constantly seem to be to the detriment of all those around. And that seems to be a constant pattern, whether it’s other humans or animals today. We are a very complicated species. Our success is extreme and it’s brilliant, but it also comes at a cost.”

Asked if she thinks organized religion and opposition to teaching (let alone learning new things about) evolution may be at least partly to blame why much of this is not known to the general public, al-Shamahi sees other matters at play.

“I think the major factor is that these are discoveries that have primarily been made in the last twenty years and, as scientists, we’re not always the best communicators. I think sometimes we get very nervous and very cautious about the way we deliver information to the public.

“I think it’s really important to show to the public the excitement that I know I have with my colleagues, for example, in a pub behind closed doors, where I don’t have to edit myself, where I’m not worrying about every single word, because it catches the imagination. I think it is important that we communicate that. I guess some people who are religious are against evolution, but I meet people all the time who have faith and are spiritual and believe in evolution.”

Many of these evolutionary discoveries have been made only recently.

“he last twenty years have seen a revolution in paleo. We’re aware of booms in certain industries. In paleoanthropology, the boom is right now. I would say that’s partly because of ancient DNA being discovered. Professor Svante Pääbo, the scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2022 actually discovered ancient DNA, and that was revolutionary to the field, because it suddenly meant that we could extract DNA from these ancient fossils and we could understand who these people were, and we could see if any of their DNA made it into us.

“When I started as an undergraduate, about twenty years ago, just over twenty years ago, our [human] family tree was much smaller, partly because ancient DNA hadn’t been [discovered], but also because some of those species were discovered through absolutely traditional means, they just hadn’t been [correctly interpreted] yet.

“For example, there are some really cool other species that were also discovered through traditional means, my favorite of which is called homo floresiensis, but we nicknamed them ‘the hobbit.’ They’re this tiny species of human, about three-and-a-half feet tall. I describe them as humans the size of penguins. They lived on this island in Indonesia, only on this island, nowhere else in the world. And they lived on this island with giant Komodo dragons, giant rats, and giant flesh-eating marabou storks that were over six feet tall. And there were also these miniature elephant-like creatures as well, called Stegodons, relatives of elephants, and they were the size of cows. So, it’s kind of fantastical,” al-Shamahi laughs. So, a lot of these discoveries are so new and, for various reasons, just haven’t been communicated.”

Given her expertise, does al-Shamahi make suggestions to the producers about what sort of footage they may want to illustrate a point, or who else they may want to interview?

“Yes. It’s a huge collaborative effort. From the moment we think about the show, before it’s even commissioned, we are constantly in meetings. I will say, ‘Look, I’m desperate for us to cover the invention of X, Y, and Z, for us to make sure that this point is really delivered, and we have to have an episode on this.’ And there will be other people in the room who will say, ‘You know what? I’m really excited about this, how about more of this?’

“We also have a lot of scientific consultants in addition to myself, and we will constantly be asking them what angles they think we should be covering. When you’re telling the story of human history, of several continents and over three hundred thousand years, it needs to be a comprehensive effort, and the best way of doing that is usually by getting a few people in the room.”

A lot of digital recreation of what ancient humans looked like was done using photogrammetry. Al-Shamahi says she didn’t have anything to do with this aspect of HUMAN, but “my understanding is that they brought in intimacy coaches, because the actors that were doing that at one point had to be almost naked. Also, they brought in scientists to confirm that the images that they were making were correct and scientifically accurate – as much as you can, really, when you’re trying to reconstruct something from bone.”

Who were some of the principal collaborators on HUMAN?

“The series director is Naomi Austin, but different episodes are directed by different people. Then you had Andrew Cohen, who is the executive in charge, and also the head of the BBC Studios science unit. And there are so many other people, executives a producer, and any number of assistant producers and associate producers, as well as researchers and a significant number of academic consultants. I think our final count was over twenty academic consultants. The principal scientific advisor was [anthropologist] Professor Chris Stringer, who is a very big name, if not the biggest name, in the field. So, yeah, it was just a huge collaboration.”

Al-Shamahi is reluctant to take individual credit for specific aspects of HUMAN.

“When I say it’s a collaborative effort, I can’t [overstate] that. There are a number of us in the room, of each screaming about our babies.”

Pressed, al-Shamahi acknowledges, “I think I was really clear that if the audience were to take only a handful of things home with them, one of them was I want people to understand that we used to live in a world of many [human species]. This is the only time in human history that only one human has walked the Earth. I felt it was important that the series headlines that subject, and everybody agreed.

“The other one is that farming and cities were the biggest tradeoff that we’ve ever made, that they’re incredibly complicated, because they are inventions that supported so many more people, realistically, we wouldn’t be here today without them. On the flip side, it means that we now live in worlds that our bodies have not evolved for. We’re not designed for a world of cities, or even farming. And so, I really wanted that to be quite significant in the series.

“We actually cover it in Episode 4 and Episode 5. Episode 4 is the Americas episode. It’s us making it to the Americas, us traveling through the Americas and settling the Americas. We include the invention of farming and cities in there.”

What makes HUMAN distinct in this coverage is that “when science shows discuss the invention of farming and cities, they don’t do it in the Americas. They go to the Fertile Crescent [in Egypt and Mesopotamia]. But by doing it in the Americas first and then visiting the Fertile Crescent, we’re forcing the audience to understand that actually farming and cities were inventions whose time had come, and both of those inventions were happening independently in different parts of the world.

“I think the other thing that all of us were, really keen to push was that our story is about us, and we shouldn’t act like these people were not humans with emotions. I’ve often said that we allow animals on television – I also make natural history shows – to have more emotions sometimes than we give our own ancestors. We feel like we have to be very square, very prim and proper when we discuss the archaeology of our ancestors, but I put to you that they’re human. They have emotions.

There are so many instances in the show where it was really hard to not have an emotion. There are these incredible footprints in New Mexico – it’s a child’s footprints and a small adult, so the interpretation is a mother and a child, and every so often, the child’s footprints disappear, but the mother’s footprints suddenly become heavier and slide a little bit. She’s clearly picking up the child, at times putting her on the right hip, at times putting her on the left hip. It’s very moving when you see something like that.”

Likewise, “It’s very moving when you see the evidence for the very first ritual we have in the world. It’s this incredible cave with bits of stone that the humans that were there fifteen thousand years ago chipped into the stone to create these scales, so it looks like a snake. We waited until the evening, and it was dark, and we mimicked candlelight within the cave, and we know that the humans there were making offerings. And it’s very hard to be in a situation like that and not feel moved, and not wonder, ‘Well, what were they asking for?’ Because realistically, they would have been asking for the same things that we ask for today – better health, resources, food, protection. It really connects you with them.

“There was a skull that was in Romania that was part Neanderthal, part homo sapiens, that was mixed. And again, you sit there and you wonder about some of those people that were mixed, because most of us will have those people in our ancestry. You think, ‘What would that have been like, to be not mixed ethnicity, but actually mixed species? Would your mother have been terrified for you, worrying that you would turn out looking a bit too Neanderthal, and she wants you to look homo sapiens, so you don’t get ostracized?’

“We were really keen on making sure that we allow the audience to see our ancestors as our ancestors, that this is our story and it’s not detached. I was really glad that we did that. That’s not very common in science shows, that we allow emotion, but it was decided that we should do it, and it’s been amazing to see the audience really respond to that.”

Apart from her career as a scientist, al-Shamahi is also a stand-up comic. Does this play any role in her hosting of HUMAN?

There are, sadly, no jokes in the series. The tone of the series is one of wonder, awe, fascination, and emotion. I’m definitely not doing any stand-up in it. It’s one of those things where we made the decision to not include that.

“My actual stand-up is I would hope funny. I do tour, and I do comedy, but I also do science lectures, mainstream science lectures, and those are definitely a different tone. I’d like to think they’re filled with awe, but also with funny. But that’s a live audience, so you can also see people’s reactions. I consistently have women coming up to me, dragging their poor husbands, telling me that their husbands are Neanderthals and can I please steal their skulls. With an audience like that, there’s complete license to have humor and fun in the room.”

In conclusion, al-Shamahi relates, “These kinds of shows that are science-based shows but are aimed for the mainstream and are incredibly cinematic. We were filming around the world in, I think, over sixteen countries. It takes three years to make a show like this.

“And our aim is making science accessible to the public. PBS and the BBC they have this long relationship of banding together to make these really cinematic, accessible science series, where you come away and you learned a lot, but it doesn’t feel like you’re sitting in a very, very convoluted and kind of difficult space. The aim is to take you along on a journey.

“It’s just so important to be making those kinds of shows and, truthfully, it’s very hard to see those kinds of shows on most network TV, if actually any network TV. It really is only PBS that is making those kinds of shows. They’re the kinds of shows as well where, certainly if the U.K. is anything to go by, families were coming up to me, [saying that they had] two or three generations sitting together, watching these shows, and I think that’s great.”

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Exclusive Interview: Scientist Ella al-Shamahi on new five-part documentary series PBS NOVA: HUMAN

Related Posts: