Australopithecines

Early Hominids
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lecture you should be able to:

Describe the various Australopithecines in some detail

Discuss possible phylogenetic relationships among the Australopithecines

Discuss various theories concerning Australopithecine bipedalism

Introduction
This lecture is about early hominids. This title needs to be treated as a colloquialism. It is
what everyone calls the group of animals that will be discussed but it really does not fit with
any rational classification. Early Hominins would be a better title but it is such a mouthful
that no one actually uses it. The group contains the direct human ancestors from the point of
divergence with the chimpanzee lineage which molecular (and morphological) evidence
suggests occurred approximately 6 million years ago.
The period covered is known as the Plio-pleistocene since it covers both the Pliocene and the
Pleistocene. That is the last 5 million years up to about 10,000 years ago by which time most
species on Earth are pretty much as they are today (certainly in terms of morphology). In this
lecture I will introduce the species in approximately chronological order and investigate how
they might all be related. I will also look at the evolutionary pressures that may have led to
the two major features of modern humans: habitual bipedalism and huge brains.

Page 1 of 26

Australopithecines

Background

Figure 1. Miocene Evolution Summary [Jurmain & Nelson 1994]

Just to remind you where we have got to here Figure 1 shows a summary of primate evolution in the Miocene. This is only a suggested phylogeny but it shows the starting point with
the African Great Apes and Humans in the top right hand corner.

Page 2 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 2. Hominid Species [Fleagle 1999]

Since the chimp and human lineages have split we have 4 recognised genera: Ardepithecus,
Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as shown in Figure 2 (but see the Stop Press
information at the end) Some authors would actually claim there are only two genera: Australopithecus (containing the first 3) and Homo but this does seems rather restrictive since
there are very clear anatomical differences between all 4 groups.

Page 3 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 3. Temporal span [Fleagle 1999]

This slide shows the ages of the fossils that have been divided into these groups (Australopithecus bahlrelghazi is missing from the figure - it would sit in the A. afarensis band at 3 to
3.5 mya but since we still know very little about the species it adds very little to the overall
picture). These temporal bands have been obtained by working out the age ranges of the
fossils so they are underestimates: there could easily be individuals living both before and
after these dates that have not been fossilised. The diagram stops at 1mya because after that
life becomes yet more complicated!

Page 4 of 26

Australopithecines

Earliest Hominids

Figure 4. Australopithecine Map [Jurmain & Nelson 1994]

This section will discuss the australopithecines. This group is characterised by smaller brains
and larger teeth compared to modern humans. They are relatively short and there seems to be
a great deal of sexual dimorphism in some species. Compared to apes, these animals have
small incisors and canines for their body weight and they do not have a sectorial lower P3.
They have thick enamel on their teeth and the position of the foramen magnum suggests that
all were habitually upright.

Page 5 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 4 shows some of the major finds and their locations. There are several general features
to note.
Firstly, the fossils are all named with a site number (or occasionally a popular name for the
really famous fossils although they have accession numbers too). This is to remove ambiguity. Fossils get assigned to a variety of different species as people alter classifications but the
site number will never change. If I talk about WT-17,000 (for West Turkana fossil number
17,000) then I can only be talking about a certain fossil whereas if I say the Paranthropus
aethipicus cranium it assumes that we all agree that species designation which is certainly not
the case.
Secondly, the sites. There are two main areas where almost all the early hominid material is
found. The first site is the East African rift valley system (1,200 miles long) associated with
mountain building, faulting and vulcanism over last few million years. Earth movement mean
sediments get exposed (Plio-Pleistocene 4 to 1 mya), and volcanic activity causes layers of
volcanic ash (tuffs) which can be dated (potassium argon, or fission tracks) accurately. Here
is a brief description of some of the localities within the Rift Valley:

Hadar
Very many fossils and artefacts. Fossils from 3.9 to 3 mya. Most famous is Lucy (Afar
Locality (AL) 288-1, Australopitheucs afarensis), a 40% complete skeleton (one of only 2
hominid skeletons earlier than 100,000 ya). AL 333 is a group of over 13 individuals including 4 infants: a catastrophic assemblage perhaps.

Omo
Very thick continuous sequence (0.5 mile thick). 2.9 to 1 mya. Very rich fauna, so useful for
biostratigraphic dating, but fossil hominids restricted to teeth and bone fragments.

East Turkana
Possibly the richest site. Approx. 1.8 mya, though there are some much older beds (3.3 mya).
Complete skulls, jaws and postcrania.

West Turkana
West side of Lake Turcana. 2 very famous finds: an almost complete, 1.6 mya Homo erectus
adolescent (see later) and the so called black skull (Paranthropus aethiopicus), a 2.4 mya
robust australopithecine skull that is still causing problems with classification!

Olduvai Gorge
Mini Grand Canyon. 2 mya to present, providing an excellent sequence of fossils and artefacts, including the original robust australopithecine cranium (Paranthropus bosei).

Laetoli
3.75 to 3.5 mya. Most famous for the Laetoli footprints: thousands of footprints of over 20
different species including hominids. One set of hominid tracks are of 2-3 individuals in a
trail more than 25 m long - bipedal walking such as this is considered to be characteristic of
hominids

Page 6 of 26

Australopithecines

The other main area is South Africa. Unlike the East African deposits, the South African ones
are all cave deposits - piles of mineralised sediment that has fallen into caves. They are not
currently datable to any great accuracy and the ages are usually inferred by looking at the
faunal context of the fossil and comparing it to faunal remains from better dated sites. However, they have produced many fossils including some good postcranial material (including
pelvises and foot bones: important for investigating bipedalism)

Taung
Limestone mine which produced the Taung Child in the 1920s (Australopithecus africanus). Before this, it was always thought that the earliest humans would be discovered in
Europe, or perhaps the Far East. Consequently, it took quite a while before this discovery was
accepted for what it was.

Sterkfontein, Kromdrai & Swartkrans

Another set of caves in SA. (Sterkfontein was another commercial lime works). Sts-5 is an
adult Australopithecus africanus and Sk-48 is a Parathropus robustus cranium.

Makapansgat
Another cave

Ardipithecus
Ardipithecus ramadus
This is the oldest of the group and is considered to be close to the split point between chimpanzees and humans. We do not have a great deal of fossil material to work on but due to the
presence of certain ape-like features (thin enamel, narrow molars) some people consider it to
be an early chimp ancestor (i.e. on the chimp side of the split). However, it does appear to be
upright due to the forward placement of the foramen magnum.

Page 7 of 26

Australopithecines

Australopithecus

Figure 5. Gracile and Robust Australopithecines [Fleagle 1999]

Australopithecus is now reserved for the gracile form of the early Pliocene fossils. As you
can see from Figure 5 this means that the skulls are rather small although there is no real
difference in the brain size of robust and gracile forms. They lack the thick bony buttresses
seen in the robusts and have very much smaller teeth (although still large by modern standards). Interestingly gracile and robust forms are found contemporaneously. The differing

Page 8 of 26

Australopithecines

morphology is thought to be diet related so this may have allowed sufficient niche separation
to prevent exclusion.

Figure 6. Gracile and Robust Australopithecines [Wood 1992]

Figure 6 shows the features of the two best known gracile australopithecines and compares
their features with those of chimpanzees and the early Miocene Proconsul africanus.

Australopithecus afarensis

Figure 7. Australopithecus afarensis [Wood 1992]

This is the East African gracile form. Figure 7 shows a list of the distinguishing features of
Australopithecus afarensis. Interestingly this hominid has an extremely large degree of sexual
dimorphism - either that or there is another contemporaneous species. The jury is out on this

Page 9 of 26

Australopithecines

but sexual dimorphism seems the most likely. We have an extremely good postcranial skeleton (Lucy) and recently a decent cranium has also been found. This animal is assumed to be
the source of the hominid bipedal trackways found at Laetoli.

Page 10 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 8. Laetoli Footprints (human and hippo) [Behrensmeyer 1992]

Page 11 of 26

Australopithecines

There is some dispute about the nature of A. afarensis bipedality. The trackway shows a very
humanlike gait with the big toes in line with the other digits. Analysis of A. afarensis foot
bones has suggested that the pollux may have been divergent and that the digits are long and
curved. This has led to speculation that A. afarensis, whilst able to walk upright, still spent a
great deal of time arboreally.

Page 12 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 9. Is Australopithecus bipedal? [Fleagle 1999]

Also the pelvis of A. afarensis is very human-like in shape and suggests an upright posture.
The human pelvis is bucket shaped to stop the abdominal contents falling out through the
perineum. The chimp pelvis does not offer the same degree of support - it is much more
similar to the pelvises found in animals that maintain a mostly horizontal trunk.
Page 13 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 10. Pelvis comparison [Conroy 1990]

There is no suggestion that the bipedality of the other early Pliocene hominids was any more
advanced. We simply do not have as good fossil evidence to allow speculation in the other
species.

Page 14 of 26

Australopithecines

Australopithecus africanus

Figure 11. Australopithecus africanus [Wood 1992]

This is the South African gracile form. We have no complete skeleton to go on but there are
isolated crania and postcrania which suggest bipedality. There seems to be less sexual dimorphism and smaller canines which might suggest a less polygynous social system or smaller
groups.

Australopithecus anamensis
This is a relative recent addition to the Australopithecus genus. It has been found in several
sites in East Africa and is between 3.9 and 4.2 mya. There is a very small amount of postcranial material but what there is has been described as showing evidence of bipedality and
sexual dimorphism.

Australopithecus bahrelghazali
What can I say? A few bits of upper and lower jaw and teeth from Chad. They are dated at 3
to 3.5 mya and show that there were australopithecines further West than just the East African rift valley.

Page 15 of 26

Australopithecines

Paranthropus

Figure 12. Paranthropus morphology [Jurmain & Nelson 1994]

These are the robust australopithecines. Figure 12 shows some of the cranial features which
are associated with the large increase in size of the bony elements of the skull. This change is
assumes to be related to a diet that relies heavily on tough plant material that needs a great
deal of chewing before swallowing. Some forms were given the name nutcracker man
because of the size of their molar teeth but it seems more likely that the size is associated
with a high fibre diet rather than breaking nut shells. Large flat molars are usually associated
with grinding and shearing. As with the gracile forms there are a number of species although

Page 16 of 26

Australopithecines

all are more recent than the earliest graciles and this suggest that they are a now extinct
offshoot from the direct human lineage.

Figure 13. Paranthropus and Homo skull comparison [Wood 1992]

Paranthropus bosei

Figure 14. Paranthropus bosei [Wood 1992]

The slide shows the characteristic features of the best known East African form. This is the
original Zinjanthropus, nutcracker man).

Page 17 of 26

Australopithecines

Paranthropus aethiopicus
This is the oldest robust australopithecine. It has been described as hyper robust, but also as
intermediate between A. afarensis and the other robusts. It dates from 2.3 to 2.7 mya.

Paranthropus robustus

Figure 15. Paranthropus robustus [Wood 1992]

This is the South African robust form. Interestingly it seems to have lived sympatrically with
the first member of the genus Homo (H. habilis). Its remains have been associated with the
earliest stone tools, but it is unclear whether these were made by P. robustus or H. habilis. H.
habilis is the popular choice but it is actually very difficult to be sure.

Bipedalism
The main evolutionary question of this period is the one of bipedalism. Australopithecines do
have quite big brains but not really any bigger than a modern chimpanzee and the real push to
increase brain size seems to have occurred later on. However, the evidence suggest that
australopithecines were fully capable bipeds (even if some species still spent some time in
trees). The question is therefore what caused this change to habitual bipedalism.

Page 18 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 16. Why Bipedalism? [Fleagle 1999]

This slide illustrates some of the theories that have been postulated. Some of these make a
great deal of sense. Others are more or less crackpot. Some seem better able to explain the
causative chain of events - especially since we think that bipedalism probably evolved before
australopithecines moved out from a jungle environment to a savannah one. After the move
to savannah living several of these theories show clear advantages to being bipedal which
would explain the success of a bipedal primate in that environment but not what would have
caused the adoption of bipedalism in the first place. I favour one of the freeing up the hands
options. Chimpanzees sometimes walk bipedally when carrying, they are sometimes bipedal
for display and they are bipedal when foraging requires it. These seem like the more probable
scenarios.

Page 19 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 17. Bipedal adaptions [Martin 1992]

This slide shows the skeletal adaptations associated with bipedalism. These are shown to a
greater or lesser extent in Australopithecines although the fossil evidence is not good enough
to be entirely certain.

Phylogeny
So how do these groups link up to modern humans? We will come back to this when we talk
about modern humans but as you might expect there are plenty of alternatives even when just
considering the australopithecines.

Page 20 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 18. Alternative phylogenies [Fleagle 1999]

Here are a couple of very similar trees. These both assume A. afarensis as the ultimate
common ancestor and differ as to whether A. africanus is merely an offshoot or a direct
ancestor and the closeness of the early robust forms to Homo habilis. Since these trees are a
few years old they do not include the newer species.

Figure 19. Really Good Summary tree [Fleagle 1999]

Page 21 of 26

Australopithecines

This one however does and obviously favours the A. africanus sideshoot. This is a good tree
since it attempts to go all the way through to modern humans so we will come back to it
again.

Stop Press
I wrote this lecture in 2000 and of course Science does not stand still. There have been
several major fossil finds since then. These do not effect the basic conclusions but they have
had a great impact on the details especially in terms of timing the chimp/human common
ancestor and the numbers of species involved.

Figure 20. Orrorin tugenensis fossils [Senut et al. 2001]

First of all at the Orrorin tugenensis was reported in 2001 (Figure 20). This fossil was
reliably dated and considerably older than other early hominid finds. In fact it probably
predated the previously considered chimp/human split time that had been slowly creeping
down towards 5mya. However the description of the fossils certainly suggests a fully bipedal
hominid and that led to a lot of tree revision as in Figure 21.

Page 22 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 21. 2001 tree [Aiello & Collard 2001]

Page 23 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 22. Sahelanthropus tchadensis [Brunet et al. 2002]

The in 2002 another new hominid was found: Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Figure 22). This
fossil is, if anything, slightly older that Orrorin and very reliably dated. Once again we need
to rewrite our family tree and some authors have given up on trying to link the various
members altogether (Figure 23).

Page 24 of 26

Australopithecines

Figure 23. 2002 tree [Wood 2002]

This fossil again has some highly derived features that suggest it is firmly on the human
branch of the tree once again pushing back the earliest time of the chimp/human common
ancestor. Perhaps its a good job that a very recent article has found that the DNA difference
between humans and chimps is more like 5% rather than the 2% previously suggested
(Britten 2002).

Bibliography
Aiello, L.C., Collard, M. Our newest oldest ancestor? Nature 410: 526-527.
Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1992. Fossil deposits and their investigation. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, eds. Jones, S., Martin, R., Pilbeam, D. pp. 187-190. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Britten, R.J. 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences
is 5%, counting indels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Online at http://www.pnas.org/
Brunet, M., Guy, F., Pilbeam, D., Mackaye, H.T., Likius, A., Ahounta, D., Beauvilain, A.,
Blondel, C., Bocherens, H., Boisserie, J.R., De Bonis, L., Coppens, Y., Dejax, J., Denys, C.,
Duringer, P., Eisenmann, V.R., Fanone, G., Fronty, P., Geraads, D,. Lehmann, T., Lihoreau,
F., Louchart, A., Mahamat, A., Merceron, G., Mouchelin, G., Otero, O., Campomanes, P.P.,
De Leon, M.P., Rage, J.C., Sapanet, M., Schuster, M., Sudre, J., Tassy, P., Valentin, X.,
Vignaud, P., Viriot, L., Zazzo, A., Zollikofer, C. A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of
Chad, central Africa. Nature 418 (6894): 145-151.
Conroy, G. C. 1990. Primate Evolution. London: Norton.
Fleagle, J.G. 1999. Primate Adaptation and Evolution. London: Academic Press.

Page 25 of 26

Australopithecines

Jurmain, R., Nelson, H. 1994. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Minneapolis: West

Publishing Company. Wood, B.A. 1992. Evolution of Australopithecines. In: The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, eds. Jones, S., Martin, R., Pilbeam, D. pp. 231-240.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Martin, R. 1992. Walking on two legs. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution,
eds. Jones, S., Martin, R., Pilbeam, D. pp. 76. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Senut, B., Pickford, M., Gommery, D., Mein, P., Cheboi, K., Coppens, Y. (2001). First
hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya). Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des
Sciences Serie II Fascicule A-Sciences de la Terre et des Planetes 332 (2): 137-144
Wood, B.A. 1992. Evolution of Australopithecines. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Human Evolution, eds. Jones, S., Martin, R., Pilbeam, D. pp. 231-240. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Wood B.A. 2002. Hominid revelations from Chad. Nature 418:133-135.

Page 26 of 26