Species of Human

Australopithecus afarensis
Nickname: Lucy's species

Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania)
When Lived: Between about 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human

species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300
individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia,
Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four
times as long as our own species has been around. It is best known from the sites of
Hadar, Ethiopia (‘Lucy’, AL 288-1 and the 'First Family', AL 333); Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika
‘child’ skeleton); and Laetoli (fossils of this species plus the oldest documented bipedal
footprint trails).
Similar to chimpanzees, Au. afarensis children grew rapidly after birth and reached
adulthood earlier than modern humans. This meant Au. afarensis had a shorter period
of growing up than modern humans have today, leaving them less time for parental
guidance and socialization during childhood.
Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had
apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase
(with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a
modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing
trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that
stood on two legs and regularly walked upright. Their adaptations for living both in the
trees and on the ground helped them survive for almost a million years as climate and
environments changed.
Year of Discovery: 1974

History of Discovery:
The species was formally named in 1978 following a wave of fossil discoveries at
Hadar, Ethiopia, and Laetoli, Tanzania. Subsequently, fossils found as early as
the 1930s have been incorporated into this taxon.
Height: Males: average 4 ft 11 in (151 cm); Females: average 3 ft 5 in (105 cm)

Weight: Males: average 92 lbs (42 kg) ; Females: average 64 lbs (29 kg)
We don’t know everything about our early ancestors—but we keep learning more!
Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas, using
groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our
understanding of human evolution.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Au. afarensis that may be
answered with future discoveries:
1. A fossil similar to Au. afarensis and dating to 3.5 million years ago has been
found in Chad—did this species extend so far into central Africa?
2. We know Au. afarensis were capable of walking upright on two legs, but they
would have walked differently than modern humans do today; so, what did their
bipedal locomotion look like?
3. Did Au. afarensis usually walk upright like modern humans, or did they spend
more time climbing trees like other living African apes?
4. The species Au. afarensis existed through a period of environmental fluctuation
yet showed no adaptations to the changing environment—why? Was it because
they were able to migrate to where their usual food sources were located? Or
were their food sources somehow unaffected?
5. Au. afarensis shows strong sexual dimorphism in that the body sizes between
males and females are quite different; however, sexual dimorphism in other
primates is usually characterized by size differences in bodies and teeth. Fossil
evidence shows that male Au. afarensis individuals had canine teeth comparable
in size to those of females. Did male dominance in Au. afarensis individuals not
include the need to bear large canine teeth, as it does in many other male
primates?
6. The teeth and jaw of Au. afarensis are robust enough to chew hard foods, but
dental microwear studies show Au. afarensis individuals ate soft foods like plants
and fruit instead. While most scientists think that Au. afarensis ate hard, brittle
foods during tough times when vegetation was not easily found, further
microwear studies show that eating hard foods did not coincide with dry seasons
of little vegetation. So how do properties of Au. afarensis teeth relate to their
diet?
How They Survived:
 Au. afarensis had mainly a plant-based diet, including leaves, fruit, seeds,
roots, nuts, and insects… and probably the occasional small vertebrates,
like lizards.
How do we know what Au. afarensis ate?
 Paleoanthropologists can tell what Au. afarensis ate from looking at the
remains of their teeth. Dental microwear studies indicate they ate soft,
sugar-rich fruits, but their tooth size and shape suggest that they could
have also eaten hard, brittle foods too – probably as ‘fallback’ foods during
seasons when fruits were not available.
Evolutionary Tree Information:
 This species may be a direct descendant of Au. anamensis and may be

ancestral to later species of Paranthropus, Australopithecus, and Homo.
Australopithecus africanus
Where Lived: Southern Africa (South Africa)

When Lived: About 3.3 to 2.1 million years ago
Au. africanus was anatomically similar to Au. afarensis, with a combination of human-
like and ape-like features. Compared to Au. afarensis, Au. africanus had a rounder
cranium housing a larger brain and smaller teeth, but it also had some ape-like features
including relatively long arms and a strongly sloping face that juts out from underneath
the braincase with a pronounced jaw. Like Au. afarensis, the pelvis, femur (upper leg),
and foot bones of Au. africanus indicate that it walked bipedally, but its shoulder and
hand bones indicate they were also adapted for climbing,
The Taung child, found in 1924, was the first to establish that early fossil humans
occurred in Africa. After Prof. Raymond Dart described it and named the species
Australopithecus africanus (meaning southern ape of Africa), it took more than 20 years
for the scientific community to widely accept Australopithecus as a member of the
human family tree.

Weight: Males: average 90 lbs (41 kg); Females: average 66 lb (30 kg)
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Au. africanus that may be
1. Au. africanus is currently the oldest known early human from southern Africa.
Where did it come from? Was it a descendent of Au. afarensis from Eastern
Africa?
2. Is Au. africanus part of the lineage that led to our own species, Homo sapiens?
3. In 1994, scientist Ron Clarke found four left early human foot bones while
searching through boxes of fossils at Sterkfontein, a site in South Africa where
most Au. africanus fossils come from. He dubbed this fossil "Little Foot", and has
since found that it comes from a 3.3-million-year-old partial skeleton, most of
which is still embedded in the cave sediments. When this fossil is completely
excavated, it will shed light on several questions about this species (if it is
designated as an Au. africanus individual): How big was it? What did its post-
cranial skeleton look like? How does it compare to STS 14, another partial
skeleton of Au. africanus?
How They Survived:

The hunter or the hunted?
 No stone tools have been discovered in the same sediments as Au.

africanus fossils; however, for a long time researchers believed Au.
africanus was a hunter. Raymond Dart created the term
‘osteodontokeratic’ culture (osteo = bone, donto = tooth, keratic = horn) in
the 1940s and 1950s because remains of this species were found
alongside broken animal bones. Dart assumed these broken animal
bones, teeth and horns were used by Au. africanus as weapons; however,
in the 1970s and 1980s, other scientists began to recognize that predators
such as lions, leopards, and hyenas were instead responsible for leaving
these broken animal bones. These predators even ate Au. africanus
individuals, too.
 Despite the carnivorous preferences of their contemporaneous predators,
Au. africanus individuals had a diet similar to modern chimpanzees, which
consisted of fruit, plants, nuts, seeds, roots, insects, and eggs.
How do we know what they ate?
 Scientists can tell what Au. africanus may have eaten from looking at the
remains of their teeth---tooth-size, shape, and tooth-wear can all provide
diet clues. Dental microwear studies found more scratches than pits on
Au. africanus teeth compared to a contemporaneous species, P. robustus.
This pattern indicates that Au. africanus ate tough foods but also had a
very variable diet including softer fruits and plants.
 Many scientists consider either this species or Au. afarensis of East Africa
to represent a viable candidate for the ancestor of the genus Homo.
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Turkana basin of northern Kenya, southern Ethiopia)
Paranthropus aethiopicus is still much of a mystery to paleoanthropologists, as very few

remains of this species have been found. The discovery of the 2.5 million year old
’Black Skull’ in 1985 helped define this species as the earliest known robust
australopithecine. P. aethiopicus has a strongly protruding face, large megadont teeth, a
powerful jaw, and a well-developed sagittal crest on top of skull, indicating huge
chewing muscles, with a strong emphasis on the muscles that connected toward the
back of the crest and created strong chewing forces on the front teeth.
Paranthropus aethiopicus was originally proposed in 1967 by a team of French

paleontologists to describe a toothless partial mandible (Omo 18) that was thought to
differ enough from the mandibles of the early human species known at that time. This
naming of a new species was generally dismissed; many paleoanthropologists thought
it premature to name a new species on the basis of a single incomplete mandible. In
1985, when Alan Walker and Richard Leakey discovered the famous "Black Skull" west
of Lake Turkana in Kenya, the classification reemerged. With its mixture of derived and
primitive traits, KNM-WT 17000 validated, in the eyes of many scientists, the recognition
of a new "robust" australopithecine species dating to at least 2.5 million years ago in
eastern Africa.
Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas with
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about P. aethiopicus that may be
1. What kind of environments did it prefer to live in?

2. Is it actually more closely related to Au. afarensis, with which it shares many
features, or the other “robust” australopithecines like P. boisei, which many
scientists think is a direct descendant of P. aethiopicus?
3. How big were this species (body size)?
4. Did it exhibit body size sexual dimorphism, like most other australopithecines
from this time period?
How They Survived:
 The shape and large size of the teeth indicate a largely vegetarian diet.
 Many features of the skull are quite similar to Australopithecus

afarensis, and P. aethiopicus may be a descendent of this species. It is
most likely the ancestor of the robust australopithecine species found later
in Eastern Africa, Paranthropus boisei.
Paranthropus boisei
Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi)

Like other members of the Paranthropus genus, P. boisei is characterized by a

specialized skull with adaptations for heavy chewing. A strong sagittal crest on the
midline of the top of the skull anchored the temporalis muscles (large chewing muscles)
from the top and side of the braincase to the lower jaw, and thus moved the massive
jaw up and down. The force was focused on the large cheek teeth (molars and
premolars). Flaring cheekbones gave P. boisei a very wide and dish-shaped face,
creating a larger opening for bigger jaw muscles to pass through and support massive
cheek teeth four times the size of a modern human’s. This species had even larger
cheek teeth than P. robustus, a flatter, bigger-brained skull than P. aethiopicus, and the
thickest dental enamel of any known early human. Cranial capacity in this species
suggests a slight rise in brain size (about 100 cc in 1 million years) independent of brain
enlargement in the genus Homo.

Paleoanthropologists actually found the first fossils belonging to P. boisei in 1955, but it
wasn’t until Mary Leakey’s 1959 discovery of the ‘Zinj’ skull (OH 5) that scientists knew
what they had found was a new species. ‘Zinj’ became the type specimen for P. boisei
and, soon after, arguably the most famous early human fossil from Olduvai Gorge in
northern Tanzania.

Weight: Males: average 108 lbs (49 kg); Females: average 75 lbs (34 kg)
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about P. boisei that may be answered
with future discoveries:
1. What, specifically, did P. boisei eat? The morphology and microwear of their
teeth indicate different things.
2. Did P. boisei use stone tools? While we don’t think they did, P. boisei individuals
have been found in stratigraphic layers with tools, and also with Homo
specimens who often made tools, so there’s always a possibility.
3. What was the advantage of the big jaws and teeth of P. boisei?
4. These early humans flourished for a million years, over four times as long as our
own species Homo sapiens have been around, and then went extinct---why?
Scientists have one prevailing hypothesis: P. boisei was unable to adapt to a
rapidly changing environment. When Earth’s climate intense irregular with
fluctuating hot and cold spells, there may have been changes in the proportions
of food resources available to P. boisei. Certain plants could have dwindled or
died out. A species’ ability to adapt to changing resources, like food, is critical to
their survival. Was highly specialized P. boisei unable to adapt if some of their
favored plant foods disappeared due to climatic changes?
How They Survived:
This species was nicknamed Nutcracker Man for its big teeth and strong chewing
muscles, which attached to the large crest on the skull. Those features show that
Paranthropus boisei likely ate tough foods like roots and nuts. But dental microwear
patterns seen on P. boisei teeth are more similar to living fruit-eaters with fine striations,
rather than large, deep pits seen in the teeth of living species that eat grass, tough
leaves and stems, or other hard, brittle foods. While the morphology of P. boisei skull
and teeth indicate it could have chewed hard or tough foods, dental microwear analysis
does not demonstrate that they regularly did so, suggesting a wider, more diverse diet
for P. boisei. It's possible that this species only ate hard or tough foods during times
when its preferred resources were scarce, relying on them as fallback foods.
This species lived in environments that were dominated by grasslands but also included
more closed, wet habitats associated with rivers and lakes.
P. boisei is usually thought to descend from earlier P. aethiopicus (who inhabited the
same geographic area just a few hundred thousand years before) and lived alongside
several other species of early humans during its 1.1 million year existence. P. boisei
belongs to just one of the many side branches of human evolution, which most
scientists agree includes all Paranthropus species and did not lead to H. sapiens.
The 1975 discovery of P. boisei specimen KNM-ER 406 and H. erectus specimen KNM-
ER 3733 in the same stratigraphic layer was the first example of species coexistence.
This discovery cleared up a long time controversy and confirmed that more than one
species of early humans lived in the same geographical area at the same time. More
finds have confirmed that this species was one of the most prevalent in Eastern Africa
during the time period when early members of the genus Homo were also present. This
replaced the traditional view of a single human lineage by the notion of a human family
tree with many branches (like most other family trees); we’ve been adding branches
though discoveries of new species ever since.
Paranthropus robustus
Where Lived: Southern Africa (South Africa)

aranthropus robustus is an example of a robust australopithecine; they had very large

megadont cheek teeth with thick enamel and focused their chewing in the back of the
jaw. Large zygomatic arches (cheek bones) allowed the passage of large chewing
muscles to the jaw and gave P. robustus individuals their characteristically wide, dish-
shaped face. A large sagittal crest provided a large area to anchor these chewing
muscles to the skull. These adaptations provided P. robustus with the ability of grinding
down tough, fibrous foods. It is now known that ‘robust’ refers solely to tooth and face
size, not to the body size of P. robustus.

When scientist Robert Broom bought a fossil jaw fragment and molar in 1938 that didn’t
look anything like some of the Au. africanus fossils he’d found during his career, he
knew he was on to something different. After exploring Kromdraai, South Africa, the site
where the curious fossils came from, Broom collected many more bones and teeth that
together convinced him he had a new species which he named Paranthropus robustus
(Paranthropus meaning “beside man”).
Height: Males: average 3 ft 9 in (1.2 m) tall; Females: average just under 3 ft 3 in (1 m)

Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Paranthropus robustus that
may be answered with future discoveries:
1. Which species did Paranthropus robustus evolve from? Did P. robustus evolve
from P. aethiopicus, or were there regionally distinct robust
australopithecine lineages - meaning P. robustus evolved from the other
southern African species Au. africanus?
2. Bone tools presumably used by P. robustus to dig into termite mounds have
been found at several South African sites. Was this tool-making, termite-mound-
digging behavior something shared by all populations of this species, or was it a
regional behavior?
How They Survived:
 Robust species like Paranthropus robustus had large teeth as well as a

ridge on top of the skull, where strong chewing muscles attached. These
features allowed individuals to crush and grind hard foods such as nuts,
seeds, roots, and tubers in the back of the jaw; however, P. robustus
didn’t just eat tough foods. This early human species may have been more
of a dietary generalist, also eating variety of other foods such as soft fruits
and possibly young leaves, insects, and meat.
 While scientists have not found any stone tools associated with
Paranthropus robustus fossils, experiments and microscopic studies of
bone fragments show that these early humans probably used bones
as tools to dig in termite mounds. Through repeated use, the ends of
these tools became rounded and polished. Termites are rich in protein,
and would have been a nutritious source of food for Paranthropus.
 From 1940s through 1970s, lots of debate whether this species represented the
males of Au. africanus. Eventually, scientists recognized that the 'robust' forms
were different enough to be in their own species, originally called
Australopithecus robustus. Later, the three robust species (aethiopicus, boisei,
and robustus) were recognized as being different enough from the other
australopithecines - and similar enough to each other - to be placed into a
separate genus, Paranthropus.
Homo habilis
Nickname: Handy Man

Where Lived: Eastern and Southern Africa
When Lived: 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago
This species, one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, has a slightly larger
braincase and smaller face and teeth than in Australopithecus or older hominin species.
But it still retains some ape-like features, including long arms and a moderately-
prognathic face.
Its name, which means ‘handy man’, was given in 1964 because this species was
thought to represent the first maker of stone tools. Currently, the oldest stone tools are
dated slightly older than the oldest evidence of the genus Homo.

A team led by scientists Louis and Mary Leakey uncovered the fossilized remains of a
unique early human between 1960 and 1963 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The type
speciman, OH 7, was found by Jonathan Leakey, so was nicknamed "Jonny's child".
Because this early human had a combination of features different from those seen
in Australopithecus, Louis Leakey, South African scientist Philip Tobias, and
British scientist John Napier declared these fossils a new species, and called
them Homo habilis (meaning 'handy man'), because they suspected that it was this
slightly larger-brained early human that made the thousands of stone tools also found at
Olduvai Gorge.
Height: average 3 ft 4 in - 4 ft 5 in (100 - 135 cm)

Weight: average 70 lbs (32 kg)
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo habilis that may be
1. Was H. habilis on the evolutionary lineage that evolved into later species of
Homo and even perhaps our species, Homo sapiens?
2. Are H. habilis and Homo rudolfensis indeed different species, or are they part of
a single, variable species? Or was one the ancestor of the other?
3. If H. habilis is not the ancestor of Homo erectus, how does it fit into our
evolutionary tree?
4. H. habilis is one of the earliest members of the genus Homo. Was there a
relationship between the origin of this genus and climate change – either with an
increased period of climatic fluctuations, or major episodes of global cooling and
drying leading to the spread of C4 grasslands?
How They Survived:
 Early Homo had smaller teeth than Australopithecus, but their tooth enamel was
still thick and their jaws were still strong, indicating their teeth were still adapted
chewing some hard foods (possibly only seasonally when their preferred foods
became less available). Dental microwear studies suggest that the diet of H.
habilis was flexible and versatile and that they were capable of eating a broad
range of foods, including some tougher foods like leaves, woody plants, and
some animal tissues, but that they did not routinely consume or specialize in
eating hard foods like brittle nuts or seeds, dried meat, or very hard tubers.
 Another line of evidence for the diet of H. habilis comes from some of the earliest
cut- and percussion-marked bones, found back to 2.6 million years ago.
Scientists usually associate these traces of butchery of large animals, direct
evidence of meat and marrow eating, with the earliest appearance of the genus
Homo, including H. habilis.
 Many scientists think early Homo, including H. habilis, made and used the first
stone tools found in the archaeological record—these also date back to about 2.6
million years ago; however, this hypothesis is difficult to test because several
other species of early human lived at the same time, and in the same geographic
area, as where traces of the earliest tool use have been found.
This species, along with H. rudolfensis, is one of the earliest members of the genus
Homo. Many scientists think it is an ancestor of later species of Homo, possibly on our
own branch of the family tree. Naming this species required a redefining of the genus
Homo (e.g., reducing the lower limit of brain size), sparking an enormous debate about
the validity of this species.
While scientists used to think that H. habilis was the ancestor of Homo erectus, recent
discoveries in 2000 of a relatively late 1.44 million-year-old Homo habilis (KNM-ER
42703) and a relatively early 1.55 million-year-old H. erectus (KNM-ER 42700) from the
same area of northern Kenya (Ileret, Lake Turkana) challenged the conventional view
that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, this evidence - along with other
fossils - demonstrate that they co-existed in Eastern Africa for almost half a million
years.
Homo rudolfensis
Where Lived: Eastern Africa (northern Kenya, possibly northern Tanzania and Malawi)
When Lived: About 1.9 million to 1.8 million years ago
There is only one really good fossil of this Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER 1470, from Koobi
Fora in the Lake Turkana basin, Kenya. It has one really critical feature: a braincase
size of 775 cubic centimeters, which is considerably above the upper end of H. habilis
braincase size. At least one other braincase from the same region also shows such a
large cranial capacity.
Originally considered to be H. habilis, the ways in which H. rudolfensis differs is in its

larger braincase, longer face, and larger molar and premolar teeth. Due to the last two
features, though, some scientists still wonder whether this species might better be
considered an Australopithecus, although one with a large brain!

Russian scientist V.P. Alexeev named the species in 1986 after Richard Leakey’s team
uncovered Homo rudolfensis fossils near the shores of Lake Rudolf (now known as
Lake Turkana) in 1972. Alexeev originally named the species Pithecanthropus
rudolfensis, but the genus name Pithecanthropus was later replaced by Homo.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about H. rudolfensis that may be
1. Was Homo rudolfensis on the evolutionary lineage that evolved into later species
of Homo and even perhaps our species, Homo sapiens?
2. Are Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis indeed different species, or are they part
of a single, variable species? Or was one the ancestor of the other?
3. Are Homo rudolfensis fossils more like australopithecines than other Homo
fossils, as some scientists have suggested?
4. How big was Homo rudolfensis? Was this species sexually dimorphic?
How They Survived:
 Homo rudolfensis had large and wider molars compared to Homo habilis. While
their teeth were only slightly smaller than those seen in robust australopithecines,
H. rudolfensis didn’t have the heavily-built jaw and strong jaw muscle
attachments seen in robust early humans. These anatomical differences likely
indicate different diets between H. rudolfensis and earlier australopith species
capable of more powerful chewing.
 Like other early Homo species, Homo rudolfensis may have used stone tools
process their food. However, because more than one species of early human
lived at the time tool manufacture and use originated, it’s hard for scientists to be
certain which species is responsible for the making and using the first stone
tools. There are currently no stone tools found in the same layers as the H.
rudolfensis fossils, but there are stone tools existing in the same time period that
H. rudolfensis lived.
 KNM-ER 1470, the type specimen for Homo rudolfensis was originally thought to
belong to Homo habilis, along with KNM-ER 1813. While both skulls are about
1.9 million years old, KNM-ER 1470 had a large face and brain size around 700
cc, while KNM-ER 1813 had a smaller face and brain around 500 cc. The
explanation was that KNM-ER 1470 was a male, and the smaller KNM-ER 1813
was a female in a strongly sexually dimorphic species; however, the anatomy of
the two skulls differ considerably.
KNM-1470’s tooth roots and sockets imply the individual’s teeth were large with broad
molars, while KNM-1813 had a small upper jaw with smaller, more modern-like teeth.
KNM-1470 had a square upper jaw, while KNM-1813’s was rounded. KNM-1470’s
browridge was slight, while KNM-1813’s was strongly developed and pronounced.
These anatomical differences between KMN-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 have caused
many scientists question whether the two individuals were just different sexes of the
same species. However, the hypothesis that two species of Homo lived at the same
time went against the traditional view that humans evolved one after another in a single
lineage.
Today, most scientists recognize four species that lived in the Turkana Basin, northern
Kenya, sometime between 2.0 and 1.5 million years ago: Homo rudolfensis, Homo
habilis, Homo erectus, and Paranthropus boisei.
SK 847
Exhibit Item
Nickname:
Site: Swartkrans, Republic of South Africa
Discovered by: Ronald Clarke
Age: Between 1.8 and 1.5 million years old
Species: Homo habilis
This fossil has similarities to early African Homo erectus, sometimes known as Homo
ergaster. Yet it shows other similarities to Homo habilis, also known to occur from
eastern to southern Africa.
Homo erectus
Where Lived: Northern, Eastern, and Southern Africa; Western Asia (Dmanisi,
Republic of Georgia); East Asia (China and Indonesia)
When Lived: Between about 1.89 million and 143,000 years ago
Early African Homo erectus fossils (sometimes called Homo ergaster) are the oldest
known early humans to have possessed modern human-like body proportions
with relatively elongated legs and shorter arms compared to the size of the torso. These
features are considered adaptations to a life lived on the ground, indicating the loss of
earlier tree-climbing adaptations, with the ability to walk and possibly run long distances.
Compared with earlier fossil humans, note the expanded braincase relative to the size
of the face. The most complete fossil individual of this species is known as the ‘Turkana
Boy’ – a well-preserved skeleton (though minus almost all the hand and foot bones),
dated around 1.6 million years old. Microscopic study of the teeth indicates that he
grew up at a growth rate similar to that of a great ape. There is fossil evidence that this
species cared for old and weak individuals. The appearance of Homo erectus in the
fossil record is often associated with the earliest handaxes, the first major innovation in
stone tool technology.
Early fossil discoveries from Java (beginning in the 1890s) and China (‘Peking Man’,
beginning in the 1920s) comprise the classic examples of this species. Generally
considered to have been the first species to have expanded beyond Africa, Homo
erectus is considered a highly variable species, spread over two continents (it's not
certain whether it reached Europe), and possibly the longest lived early human species
- about nine times as long as our own species, Homo sapiens, has been around!

Eugène Dubois, a Dutch surgeon, found the first Homo erectus individual (Trinil 2) in
Indonesia in 1891. In 1894, Dubois named the species Pithecanthropus erectus, or
‘erect ape-man.’ At that time, Pithecanthropus (later changed to Homo) erectus was the
most primitive and smallest-brained of all known early human species; no early human
fossils had even been discovered in Africa yet.
Height: Ranges from 4 ft 9 in - 6 ft 1 in (145 - 185 cm)

Weight: Ranges from 88 - 150 lbs (40 - 68 kg)
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo erectus that may be
1. Was Homo erectus the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, our own species?
2. Data suggest that increasing body size, greater reliance on animal food
resources, and increased range size were part of a web of factors that facilitated
the initial early dispersal of H. erectus from Africa. Was one of these factors more
important than the others?
3. Are the fossils from earlier time periods in East Africa, and from Georgia, all part
of a single species (Homo erectus), regionally variable in size and shape? Or are
there actually several species of early human represented by what we are now
calling Homo erectus?
4. How well did Homo erectus master the control of fire and how widespread was
fire used? What does this say about possible dietary shifts in this species?
5. Did Homo erectus grow up in a more human-like pattern and rate, or a more ape-
like one? Was Homo erectus the first early human species to experience an
adolescent growth spurt?
How They Survived:
 The tall bodies and large brains of Homo erectus individuals required a lot of
energy on a regular basis to function. Eating meat and other types of protein that
could be quickly digested made it possible to absorb nutrients with a shorter
digestive tract, making more energy available faster. There is also speculation
that honey and underground tubers may have been significant food sources for
Homo erectus.
 Soon after we see evidence in the fossil record of the earliest Homo
erectus fossils (by about 1.9 million years ago), we see evidence in the
archeological record for the first major innovation in stone tool technology (by
about 1.76 million years ago). Known as the Acheulean stone tool industry, it
consisted of the creation of large cutting tools like handaxes and cleavers.
Increased reliance on a broader set of tools may have helped Homo erectus
survive during changing climates.
 The earliest evidence of hearths (campfires) occur during the time range
of Homo erectus. While we have evidence that hearths were used for cooking
(and probably sharing) food, they are likely to have been places for social
interaction, and also used for warmth and to keep away large predators.
 Some scientists distinguish between the African (Homo ergaster) and Asian
(Homo erectus sensu stricto) fossils of this taxon, while others lump them
together as Homo erectus sensu lato. In either case, there is general agreement
that it descended from an earlier species of Homo (e.g., Homo habilis) and
represents one of the widest dispersals of early humans in our evolutionary
history. It is likely that distinct populations of Homo erectus sensu lato led to the
emergence of later hominin species, such as Homo heidelbergensis, and
ultimately to our own species, Homo sapiens.
 At the beginning of its time range, around 1.9 Mya, H. erectus coexisted in East
Africa with several other early human species including Homo rudolfensis, Homo
habilis, and Paranthropus boisei. Sometimes they were even found at the same
fossil sites. At the end of its time range, around 143,000 years ago, it coexisted
with Homo sapiens and possibly Homo floresiensis in Indonesia.
Homo heidelbergensis
Where Lived: Europe; possibly Asia (China); Africa (eastern and southern)
When Lived: About 700,000 to 200,000 years ago
This early human species had a very large browridge, and a larger braincase and flatter
face than older early human species. It was the first early human species to live in
colder climates; their short, wide bodies were likely an adaptation to conserving heat. It
lived at the time of the oldest definite control of fire and use of wooden spears, and it
was the first early human species to routinely hunt large animals. This early human also
broke new ground; it was the first species to build shelters, creating simple dwellings out
of wood and rock.

In 1908 near Heidelberg, Germany, a workman found the type specimen of H.

heidelbergensis in the Rösch sandpit just north of the village of Mauer. This mandible
was nearly complete except for the missing premolars and first two left molars; it is
heavily built and lacks a chin. German scientist Otto Schoentensack was the first to
describe the specimen and proposed the species name Homo heidelbergensis.
Before the naming of this species, scientists referred to early human fossils showing
traits similar to both Homo erectus and modern humans as ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens.

We don’t know everything about early humans—but we keep learning more!

Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo heidelbergensis that
may be answered with future discoveries:
1. Did this early human species indeed range in time from 1.3 million to 200,000
years ago, and in geography from Africa to Europe to Asia? Or are there more
than one species represented among the fossils that some scientists call H.
heidelbergensis (including H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis)?
2. Many scientists think this species was ancestral to our own, but which species
was the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?
3. Did H. heidelbergensis have any cultural or behavioral adaptations that facilitated
it living in colder climates?
4. Did regional groups or populations of H. heidelbergensis exhibit any
unique behaviors or anatomical adaptations?
How They Survived:
 There is evidence that H. heidelbergensis was capable of controlling fire by

building hearths, or early fireplaces, by 790,000 years ago in the form of fire-
altered tools and burnt wood at the site of Gesher Benot Ya-aqov in Israel. Social
groups probably often gathered around their hearths sharing food, stay warm,
and ward off predators.
H. heidelbergensis probably took advantage of natural shelters but this species was
also the first to build simple shelters. Evidence for this comes from the site of Terra
Amata, France.
H. heidelbergensis was also the first hunter of large game animals; remains of animals
such as wild deer, horses, elephants, hippos, and rhinos with butchery marks on their
bones have been found together at sites with H. heidelbergensis fossils. Evidence for
this also comes from 400,000 year old wooden spears found at the site of Schöningen,
Germany, which were found together with stone tools and the remains of more than 10
butchered horses.
One site in Atapuerca, northern Spain, dating to about 400,000 years ago, shows
evidence of what may be human ritual. Scientists have found bones of roughly 30 H.
heidelbergensis individuals deliberately thrown inside a pit. The pit has been named
Sima de los Huesos (‘Pit of Bones’). Alongside the skeletal remains, scientists
uncovered a single well-made symmetrical handaxe —illustrating the tool-making ability
of H. heidelbergensis.
 This species may reach back to 1.3 million years ago, and include early humans
from Spain (‘Homo antecessor’ fossils and archeological evidence from 800,000
to 1.3 million years old), England (archeological remains back to about 1 million
years old), and Italy (from the site of Ceprano, possibly as old as 1 million years).
 Comparison of Neanderthal and modern human DNA suggests that the two
lineages diverged from a common ancestor, most likely Homo heidelbergensis,
sometime between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago – with the European branch
leading to H. neanderthalensis and the African branch (sometimes called Homo
rhodesiensis) to H. sapiens.
Kabwe 1
Exhibit Item
Nickname: Rhodesian Man
Site: Kabwe, Zambia
Discovered by: Tom Zwiglaar
Age: Between 300,000 and 125,000 years old
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Searching for metal ore deposits in the limestone caves of Kabwe, Zambia, Swiss miner
Tom Zwiglaar is credited with finding the first early human fossil ever to be discovered
in Africa. When Kabwe (also known as Broken Hill) was sent to Arthur Smith
Woodward, Woodward assigned the specimen to a new species: Homo rhodesiensis.
Today, most scientists assign Kabwe to Homo heidelbergensis.
Kabwe shows features similar to H. erectus such as a low braincase profile (the area
towards the back of the skull), large brow ridges, a slight widening of the midface known
as the sagittal keel, and a protrusion at the back of the skull named the occipital torus.
But Kabwe also resembles modern humans with a flatter, less prognathic face, and
larger brain (1300 cubic centimeters).
This skull is one of the oldest known to have tooth cavities. They occur in 10 of the
upper teeth. The individual may have died from an infection related to dental disease or
from a chronic ear infection.
Homo neanderthalensis
Nickname: Neanderthal
Where Lived: Europe and southwestern to central Asia
When Lived: About 400,000 - 40,000 years ago
Neanderthals (the ‘th’ pronounced as ‘t’) are our closest extinct human relative. Some
defining features of their skulls include the large middle part of the face, angled cheek
bones, and a huge nose for humidifying and warming cold, dry air. Their bodies were
shorter and stockier than ours, another adaptation to living in cold environments. But
their brains were just as large as ours and often larger - proportional to their brawnier
bodies.
Neanderthals made and used a diverse set of sophisticated tools, controlled fire, lived in
shelters, made and wore clothing, were skilled hunters of large animals and also ate
plant foods, and occasionally made symbolic or ornamental objects. There is evidence
that Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead and occasionally even marked their
graves with offerings, such as flowers. No other primates, and no earlier human
species, had ever practiced this sophisticated and symbolic behavior.
DNA has been recovered from more than a dozen Neanderthal fossils, all from Europe;
the Neanderthal Genome Project is one of the exciting new areas of human origins
research.

Neanderthal 1 was the first specimen to be recognized as an early human fossil. When
it was discovered in 1856 in Germany, scientists had never seen a specimen like it: the
oval shaped skull with a low, receding forehead and distinct browridges, the thick,
strong bones. In 1864, it became the first fossil hominin species to be named. Geologist
William King suggested the name Homo neanderthalensis (Johanson and Edgar, 2006),
after these fossils found in the Feldhofer Cave of the Neander Valley in Germany (tal—a
modern form of thal—means “valley” in German). Several years after Neanderthal 1
was discovered, scientists realized that prior fossil discoveries—in 1829 at Engis,
Belgium, and in 1848 at Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar—were also Neanderthals. Even
though they weren’t recognized at the time, these two earlier discoveries were actually
the first early human fossils ever found.

We don’t know everything about our early ancestors. But scientists are constantly in the
field and the laboratory, excavating new areas and conducting analyses with
groundbreaking technology, continually filling in some of the gaps about our
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about H. neanderthalensis that may
be better answered with future discoveries:
1. Will more studies of Neanderthal DNA help us identify what is unique about the
modern human genome compared with our closest extinct relatives, the
Neanderthals?
2. Is there a close correlation between climate change and the extinction of the
Neanderthals, or was competition with modern humans the most
important factor?
3. What was the relative contribution of animal and plant sources to the average
Neanderthal's diet?
4. Were Neanderthals routinely symbolic (e.g. making ornamental or decorative
objects, burying the dead), or did this just occur in specific populations? If the
latter is the case, why did those populations exhibit these behaviors?
5. What was the relationship between Neanderthals and the "Denisovans", a
population of early humans known mainly from DNA, which overlapped
with Neanderthals in time and space in Asia?
How They Survived:
 Compared to early humans living in tropical Africa, with more abundant edible
plant foods available year-round, the number of plant foods Neanderthals could
eat would have dropped significantly during the winter of colder climates, forcing
Neanderthals to exploit other food options like meat more heavily. There is
evidence that Neanderthals were specialized seasonal hunters, eating animals
were available at the time (i.e. reindeer in the winter and red deer in the
summer). Scientists have clear evidence of Neanderthal hunting from uncovering
sharp wooden spears and large numbers of big game animal remains were
hunted and butchered by Neanderthals. There is also evidence from Gibraltar
that when they lived in coastal areas, they exploited marine resources such as
mollusks, seals, dolphins and fish. Isotopic chemical analyses of Neanderthal
bones also tell scientists the average Neanderthal’s diet consisted of a lot of
meat. Scientists have also found plaque on the remains of molar teeth containing
starch grains—concrete evidence that Neanderthals ate plants.
The Mousterian stone tool industry of Neanderthals is characterized by sophisticated

flake tools that were detached from a prepared stone core. This innovative technique
allowed flakes of predetermined shape to be removed and fashioned into tools from a
single suitable stone. This technology differs from earlier ‘core tool’ traditions, such as
the Acheulean tradition of Homo erectus. Acheulean tools worked from a suitable stone
that was chipped down to tool form by the removal of flakes off the surface.
Neanderthals used tools for activities like hunting and sewing. Left-right arm asymmetry
indicates that they hunted with thrusting (rather than throwing) spears that allowed them
to kill large animals from a safe distance. Neanderthal bones have a high frequency of
fractures, which (along with their distribution) are similar to injuries among professional
rodeo riders who regularly interact with large, dangerous animals. Scientists have also
recovered scrapers and awls (larger stone or bone versions of the sewing needle that
modern humans use today) associated with animal bones at Neanderthal sites. A
Neanderthal would probably have used a scraper to first clean the animal hide, and then
used an awl to poke holes in it, and finally use strips of animal tissue to lace together a
loose-fitting garment. Neanderthals were the first early humans to wear clothing, but it is
only with modern humans that scientists find evidence of the manufacture and use of
bone sewing needles to sew together tighter fitting clothing.
Neanderthals also controlled fire, lived in shelters, and occasionally made symbolic or
ornamental objects. There is evidence that Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead
and occasionally even marked their graves with offerings, such as flowers. No other
primates, and no earlier human species, had ever practiced this sophisticated and
symbolic behavior. This may be one of the reasons that the Neanderthal fossil record is
so rich compared to some earlier human species; being buried greatly increases the
chance of becoming a fossil!
 Both fossil and genetic evidence indicate that Neanderthals and modern humans
(Homo sapiens) evolved from a common ancestor between 500,000 and 200,000
years ago. Neanderthals and modern humans belong to the same genus (Homo)
and inhabited the same geographic areas in Asia for 30,000–50,000 years;
genetic evidence indicate while they may have interbred with non-African modern
humans, they are separate branches of the human family tree (separate
species).
In fact, Neanderthals and modern humans may have had little direct interaction for tens
of thousands of years until during one very cold period, modern humans spread across
Europe. Their presence may have prevented Neanderthals from expanding back into
areas they once favored and served as a catalyst for the Neanderthal’s impending
extinction. Over just a few thousand years after modern humans moved into Europe,
Neanderthal numbers dwindled to the point of extinction. All traces of Neanderthals
disappeared by about 40,000 years ago. The most recently dated Neanderthal fossils
come from western Europe, which was likely where the last population of this early
human species existed.
Homo luzonensis
It's known as Homo luzonensis, after the site of its discovery on the country's largest
island Luzon.
Its physical features are a mixture of those found in very ancient human ancestors and
in more recent people.
That could mean primitive human relatives left Africa and made it all the way to South-
East Asia, something not previously thought possible.
The find shows that human evolution in the region may have been a highly complicated
affair, with three or more human species in the region at around the time our ancestors
arrive.
One of these species was the diminutive "Hobbit" - Homo floresiensis - which survived
on the Indonesian island of Flores until 50,000 years ago.
Prof Chris Stringer, from London's Natural History Museum, commented: "After the
remarkable finds of the diminutive Homo floresiensis were published in 2004, I said that
the experiment in human evolution conducted on Flores could have been repeated on
many of the other islands in the region.
"That speculation has seemingly been confirmed on the island of Luzon... nearly
3,000km away."
The new specimens from Callao Cave, in the north of Luzon, are described in the
journal Nature. They have been dated to between 67,000 years and 50,000 years ago.
They consist of thirteen remains - teeth, hand and foot bones, as well as part of a femur
- that belong to at least three adult and juvenile individuals. They have been recovered
in excavations at the cave since 2007.
Homo luzonensis has some physical similarities to recent humans, but in other features
hark back to the australopithecines, upright-walking ape-like creatures that lived in
Africa between two and four million years ago, as well as very early members of the
genus Homo.
The finger and toe bones are curved, suggesting climbing was still an important activity
for this species. This also seems to have been the case for some australopithecines.
If australopithecine-like species were able to reach South-East Asia, it would change

the way our ideas about who in our human family tree left Africa first.
Homo erectus has long thought to have been the first member of our direct line to leave
the African homeland - around 1.9 million years ago.
And given that Luzon was only ever accessible by sea, the find raises questions about
how pre-human species might have reached the island.
In addition to Homo luzonensis, island South-East Asia also appears to have been
home to another human species called the Denisovans, who appear to have interbred
with early modern humans (Homo sapiens) when they arrived in the region.
This evidence comes from analysis of DNA, as no known Denisovan fossils have been
found in the region.
The Indonesian island of Flores was home to a species called Homo floresiensis,
nicknamed The Hobbits because of their small stature. They are thought to have
survived there from at least 100,000 years ago until 50,000 years ago - potentially
overlapping with the arrival of modern humans.
Interestingly, scientists have also argued that Homo floresiensis shows physical
features that are reminiscent of those found in australopithecines. But other researchers
have argued that the Hobbits were descended from Homo erectus but that some of their
anatomy reverted to a more primitive state.
In an article published in Nature, Matthew Tocheri from Lakehead University in Canada,

who was not involved with the research, commented: "Explaining the many similarities
that H. floresiensis and H. luzonensis share with early Homo species and australopiths
as independently acquired reversals to a more ancestral-like hominin anatomy, owing to
evolution in isolated island settings, seems like a stretch of coincidence too far."

Species of Human

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Species of Human

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Australopithecus afarensis

Nickname: Lucy's species

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human

Year of Discovery: 1974

Height: Males: average 4 ft 11 in (151 cm); Females: average 3 ft 5 in (105 cm)

How They Survived:

How do we know what Au. afarensis ate?

Evolutionary Tree Information:

 This species may be a direct descendant of Au. anamensis and may be

Where Lived: Southern Africa (South Africa)

Year of Discovery: 1924

Height: Males: average 4 ft 6 in (138 cm); Females: average 3 ft 9 in (115 cm)

How They Survived:

 No stone tools have been discovered in the same sediments as Au.

How do we know what they ate?

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Paranthropus aethiopicus is still much of a mystery to paleoanthropologists, as very few

Paranthropus aethiopicus was originally proposed in 1967 by a team of French

1. What kind of environments did it prefer to live in?

How They Survived:

Evolutionary Tree Information:

 Many features of the skull are quite similar to Australopithecus

Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi)

Like other members of the Paranthropus genus, P. boisei is characterized by a

Year of Discovery: 1959

Height: Males: average 4 ft 6 in (137 cm); Females: average 4 ft 1 in (124 cm)

How They Survived:

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Where Lived: Southern Africa (South Africa)

aranthropus robustus is an example of a robust australopithecine; they had very large

Year of Discovery: 1938

Height: Males: average 3 ft 9 in (1.2 m) tall; Females: average just under 3 ft 3 in (1 m)

 Robust species like Paranthropus robustus had large teeth as well as a

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Nickname: Handy Man

Year of Discovery: 1960

Height: average 3 ft 4 in - 4 ft 5 in (100 - 135 cm)

How They Survived:

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Originally considered to be H. habilis, the ways in which H. rudolfensis differs is in its

Year of Discovery: 1986

How They Survived:

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Year of Discovery: 1891

Height: Ranges from 4 ft 9 in - 6 ft 1 in (145 - 185 cm)

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Year of Discovery: 1908

In 1908 near Heidelberg, Germany, a workman found the type specimen of H.

Height: Males: average 5 ft 9 in (175 cm); Females: average 5 ft 2 in (157 cm)

We don’t know everything about early humans—but we keep learning more!

How They Survived:

 There is evidence that H. heidelbergensis was capable of controlling fire by

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Year of Discovery: 1829

Height: Males: average 5 ft 5 in (164 cm); Females: average 5 ft 1 in (155 cm)

How They Survived:

The Mousterian stone tool industry of Neanderthals is characterized by sophisticated

Evolutionary Tree Information:

If australopithecine-like species were able to reach South-East Asia, it would change

In an article published in Nature, Matthew Tocheri from Lakehead University in Canada,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi