Teeth are abundant in the fossil record, primarily because they are already highly mineralized as they are forming, far more so than even bone. Because of this, teeth preserve readily. And, because they preserve readily, they are well-studied and better understood than many skeletal elements. In the sparse hominin (and primate) fossil record, teeth are, in some cases, all we have.
Teeth also reveal a lot about the individual from whom they came. We can tell what they evolved to eat, to which other species they may be closely related, and even, to some extent, the level of sexual dimorphism, or general variability, within a given species. This is powerful information that can be contained in a single tooth. With a little more observation, the wearing patterns on a tooth can tell us about the diet of the individual in the weeks leading up to its death. Furthermore, the way in which a tooth is formed, and the timing of formation, can reveal information about changes in diet (or even mobility) over infancy and childhood, using isotopic analyses. When it comes to our earliest hominin relatives, this information is vital for understanding how they lived.
The purpose of comparing different hominin species is to better understand the functional morphology as it applies to dentition. In this, we mean that the morphology of the teeth or masticatory system (which includes jaws) can reveal something about the way in which they were used and, therefore, the kinds of foods these hominins ate. When comparing the features of hominin groups, it is worth considering modern analogues (i.e., animals with which to compare) to make more appropriate assumptions about diet. In this way, hominin dentition is often compared with that of chimpanzees and gorillas (our close ape relatives), as well as with that of modern humans.
The most divergent group, however, is humans. Humans around the world have incredibly varied diets. Among hunter-gatherers, it can vary from a honey- and plant-rich diet, as seen in the Hadza in Tanzania, to a diet almost entirely reliant on animal fat and protein, as seen in Inuits in polar regions of the world. We are therefore considered generalists, more general than the largely frugivorous (fruit-eating) chimpanzee or the folivorous (foliage-eating) gorilla, as discussed in Chapter 5.
One way in which all humans are similar is our reliance on the processing of our food. We cut up and tear meat with tools using our hands, instead of using our front teeth (incisors and canines). We smash and grind up hard seeds, instead of crushing them with our hind teeth (molars). This means that, unlike our ape relatives, we can rely more on developing tools to navigate our complex and varied diets. Our brain, therefore, is our primary masticatory organ. Evolutionarily, our teeth have reduced in size and our faces are flatter, or more orthognathic, partially in response to our increased reliance on our hands and brain to process food. Similarly, a reduction in teeth and a more generalist dental morphology could also indicate an increase in softer and more variable foods, such as the inclusion of more meat. These trends begin early on in our evolution. The link has been made between some of the earliest evidence for stone tool manufacture, the earliest members of our genus, and the features that we associate with these specimens.
General Dental Trends in Early Hominins
Several trends are visible in the dentition of early hominins. However, all tend to have the same dental formula. The dental formula tells us how many of each tooth type are present in each quadrant of the mouth. Going from the front of the mouth, this includes the square, flat incisors; the pointy canines; the small, flatter premolars; and the larger hind molars. In many primates, from Old World monkeys to great apes, the typical dental formula is 2:1:2:3. This means that if we divide the mouth into quadrants, each has two incisors, one canine, two premolars, and three molars. The eight teeth per quadrant total 32 teeth in all (although some humans have fewer teeth due to the absence of their wisdom teeth, or third molars).
The morphology of the individual teeth is where we see the most change. Among primates, large incisors are associated with food procurement or preparation (such as biting small fruits), while small incisors indicate a diet that may contain small seeds or leaves (where the preparation is primarily in the back of the mouth). Most hominins have relatively large, flat, vertically aligned incisors that occlude (touch) relatively well, forming a “bite.” This differs from, for instance, the orangutan, whose teeth stick out (i.e., are procumbent).
While the teeth are often aligned with diet, the canines may be misleading in that regard. We tend to associate pointy, large canines with the ripping required for meat, and the reduction (or, in some animals, the absence) of canines as indicative of herbivorous diets. In humans, our canines are often a similar size to our incisors and therefore considered incisiform (Figure 9.10). However, our closest relatives all have very long, pointy canines, particularly on their upper dentition. This is true even for the gorilla, which lives almost exclusively on plants. The canines in these instances reveal more about social structure and sexual dimorphism than diet, as large canines often signal dominance.
Early on in human evolution, we see a reduction in canine size. Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Orrorin tugenensis both have smaller canines than those in extant great apes, yet the canines are still larger and pointier than those in humans or more recent hominins. This implies strongly that, over evolutionary time, the need for display and dominance among males has reduced, as has our sexual dimorphism. In Ardipithecus ramidus, there is no obvious difference between male and female canine size, yet they are still slightly larger and pointier than in modern humans. This implies a less sexually dimorphic social structure in the earlier hominins relative to modern-day chimpanzees and gorillas.
Along with a reduction in canine size is the reduction or elimination of a canine diastema: a gap between the teeth on the mandible that allows room for elongated teeth on the maxilla to “fit” in the mouth. Absence of a diastema is an excellent indication of a reduction in canine size. In animals with large canines (such as baboons), there is also often a honing P3, where the first premolar (also known as P3 for evolutionary reasons) is triangular in shape, “sharpened” by the extended canine from the upper dentition. This is also seen in some early hominins: Ardipithecus, for example, has small canines that are almost the same height as its incisors, although still larger than those in recent hominins.
The hind dentition, such as the bicuspid (two cusped) premolars or the much larger molars, are also highly indicative of a generalist diet in hominins. Among the earliest hominins, the molars are larger than we see in our genus, increasing in size to the back of the mouth and angled in such a way from the much smaller anterior dentition as to give these hominins a parabolic (V-shaped) dental arch. This differs from our living relatives and some early hominins, such as Sahelanthropus, whose molars and premolars are relatively parallel between the left and right sides of the mouth, creating a U-shape.
Among more recent early hominins, the molars are larger than those in the earliest hominins and far larger than those in our own genus, Homo. Large, short molars with thick enamel allowed our early cousins to grind fibrous, coarse foods, such as sedges, which require plenty of chewing. This is further evidenced in the low cusps, or ridges, on the teeth, which are ideal for chewing. In our genus, the hind dentition is far smaller than in these early hominins. Our teeth also have medium-size cusps, which allow for both efficient grinding and tearing/shearing meats.
Understanding the dental morphology has allowed researchers to extrapolate very specific behaviors of early hominins. It is worth noting that while teeth preserve well and are abundant, a slew of other morphological traits additionally provide evidence for many of these hypotheses. Yet there are some traits that are ambiguous. For instance, while there are definitely high levels of sexual dimorphism in Au. afarensis, discussed in the next section, the canine teeth are reduced in size, implying that while canines may be useful indicators for sexual dimorphism, it is also worth considering other evidence.
In summary, trends among early hominins include a reduction in procumbency, reduced hind dentition (molars and premolars), a reduction in canine size (more incisiform with a lack of canine diastema and honing P3), flatter molar cusps, and thicker dental enamel. All early hominins have the ancestral dental formula of 2:1:2:3. These trends are all consistent with a generalist diet, incorporating more fibrous foods.
Special Topic: Contested Species
Many named species are highly debated and argued to have specimens associated with a more variable Au. afarensis or Au. anamensis species. Sometimes these specimens are dated to times when, or found in places in which, there are “gaps” in the palaeoanthropological record. These are argued to represent chronospecies or variants of Au. afarensis. However, it is possible that, with more discoveries, the distinct species types will hold.
Australopithecus bahrelghazali is dated to within the time period of Au. afarensis (3.6 mya; Brunet et al. 1995) and was the first Australopithecine to be discovered in Chad in central Africa. Researchers argue that the holotype, whom discoverers have named “Abel,” falls under the range of variation of Au. afarensis and therefore that A. bahrelghazali does not fall into a new species (Lebatard et al. 2008). If “Abel” is a member of Au. afarensis, the geographic range of the species would be greatly extended.
On a different note, Australopithecus deyiremada (meaning “close relative” in the Ethiopian language of Afar) is dated to 3.5 mya to 3.3 mya and is based on fossil mandible bones discovered in 2011 in Woranso-Mille (in the Afar region of Ethiopia) by Yohannes Haile-Selassie, an Ethiopian paleoanthropologist (Haile-Selassie et al. 2019). The discovery indicated, in contrast to Au. afarensis, smaller teeth with thicker enamel (potentially suggesting a harder diet) as well as a larger mandible and more projecting cheekbones. This find may be evidence that more than one closely related hominin species occupied the same region at the same temporal period (Haile-Selassie et al. 2015; Spoor 2015) or that other Au. afarensis specimens have been incorrectly designated. However, others have argued that this species has been prematurely identified and that more evidence is needed before splitting the taxa, since the variation appears subtle and may be due to slightly different niche occupations between populations over time.
Australopithecus garhi is another species found in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia. It is currently dated to 2.5 mya (younger than Au. afarensis). Researchers have suggested it fills in a much-needed temporal “gap” between hominin finds in the region, with some anatomical differences, such as a relatively large cranial capacity (450 cc) and larger hind dentition than seen in other gracile Australopithecines. Similarly, the species has been argued to have longer hind limbs than Au. afarensis, although it was still able to move arboreally (Asfaw et al. 1999). However, this species is not well documented or understood and is based on only several fossil specimens. More astonishingly, crude stone tools resembling Oldowan (which will be described later) have been found in association with Au. garhi. While lacking some of the features of the Oldowan, this is one of the earliest technologies found in direct association with a hominin.
Kenyanthopusplatyops (the name “platyops” refers to its flatter-faced appearance) is a highly contested genus/species designation of a specimen (KNM-WT 40000) from Lake Turkana in Kenya, discovered by Maeve Leakey in 1999 (Figure 9.11). Dated to between 3.5 mya and 3.2 mya, some have suggested this specimen is an Australopithecus, perhaps even Au.afarensis (with a brain size which is difficult to determine, yet appears small), while still others have placed this specimen in Homo (small dentition and flat-orthognathic face). While taxonomic placing of this species is quite divided, the discoverers have argued that this species is ancestral to Homo, in particular to Homo ruldolfensis (Leakey et al. 2001). Some researchers have additionally associated the earliest tool finds from Lomekwi, Kenya, temporally (3.3 mya) and in close geographic proximity to this specimen.
