A video from Johns Hopkins University explains how teeth were analyzed to determine the diet of a 2 million-year-old human ancestor known as Australopithecus sediba.
Researchers used a clever trio of tricks to figure out what 2 million-year-old human ancestors ate by analyzing the stuff on their teeth, and they found something unexpected: They ate more like chimpanzees than like humans. Their analysis could point to a reason why our species triumphed while some of our long-lost cousins failed.
"Our results suggest that there was more variation among hominins around 2 million years ago, in terms of what they ate and where they lived," Amanda Henry of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology explained in an email, using the technical term for humans and their close fossil relatives.
The various species spread out into different environments, ranging from forests to grasslands, but each species had a preferred environment, in part due to diet specialization. "Then, with the evolution of Homo erectus around 1.8 million years ago, we see a big shift," Henry said. "Homo erectus thrived in a whole variety of environments, and was even able to migrate out of Africa."
Homo erectus eventually gave rise to Homo sapiens — that is, us. Meanwhile, the hominins that were tied down to Africa's forests — perhaps including Australopithecus sediba, the South African species that Henry and her colleagues studied — faded away in the competition with other apes. The latest research, published online today by the journal Nature, doesn't address that big evolutionary issue directly. But it does provide plenty of food for thought.
Decoding the diet
Australopithecus sediba was discovered in 2008, and has come to be seen as a transitional species between the relatively small, ape-like pre-humans known as australopiths and our closer ancient relatives in the genus Homo. Only a few specimens of the species have been recovered, but they appear to reflect chimp-like as well as human-like characteristics.
So which way did Au. sediba swing when it came to its diet? The researchers focused on the teeth of two specimens, a juvenile male and an adult female.
First, the researchers zapped the tooth enamel with a laser and analyzed the vapor that was given off. The composition of the enamel preserves a record of what the individual ate while it was growing up. In this case, Johns Hopkins University geochemist Benjamin Passey used a mass spectrometer to look at the balance of carbon-12 and carbon-13 isotopes in the vapor.

Lee Berger
The teeth of a juvenile male Australopithecus sediba had a dark layer of calculus, which is clearly visible in this close-up picture.
If the level of carbon-12 is relatively high, that suggests a diet heavy in forest products such as leaves, fruits and the critters that eat those things. Those are known as C3 foods. But if carbon-13 is high, that points to foods from the African savanna, such as seeds, roots and grasses. These are C4 foods.
"It seems like a hallmark of human evolution to be able to use savanna resources," Passey told me. "Today, most of our energy comes from grass in one way or another, either from grain or from animals that eat grain and grass."
Tests on sediments and various animal bones suggested that the area where the specimens were found was a savanna 2 million years ago. However, when Passey analyzed the samples from Au. sediba, he found that the carbon was almost pure C3, suggesting a diet heavy in forest products.
Two other lines of evidence confirmed that preference: Deposits of plaque on the teeth contained bits of silica, known as phytoliths, that were linked to forest vegetation. Also, the pits on the teeth were characteristic of creatures that favored a forest diet. All the evidence pointed to the conclusion that these particular pre-humans went to the forests for virtually all of their food, even though their remains were left behind in the savanna.
"This astonished us," Passey said.
The meaning of diet
Upon reflection, it shouldn't be that surprising that Australopithecus sediba passed up what the African savanna had to offer, said the University of Colorado's Matt Sponheimer, another co-author of the Nature paper. "We know living apes don't seem to like such foods much — or at least they are never a large portion of their diets," he told me in an email. "It is likely that this is at least partly due to their masticatory (and probably digestive) anatomy being suboptimal for such diets."
Modern-day savanna chimpanzees engage in similar behavior, the researchers noted.
The findings are consistent with the view that "early hominins were quite flexible with respect to diet, with different populations preferring different parts of the available plant resource base, depending on when they lived, and where," said Bill Kimbel, who serves as director of Arizona State University's Institute of Human Origins but was not involved in the Nature study. "The plant phytoliths are a nice addition to the repertoire of perspectives on the issue."
In an email exchange, Kimbel cautioned against reading too much into Au. sediba's preference, as reflected by the results from two individuals. He took issue with my suggestion that the results put the species in the "chimp camp" rather than the "human camp," and noted that other hominin species had different preferences for C3 vs. C4 foods.
"I don't think sediba should be seen as 'remarkable' in this context," he told me. "And sediba no more belongs in the 'chimp camp' than it does in the 'giraffe camp' (with which it also shares dominant C3 values). This is not a useful analogy."
Sponheimer declined to say whether he thought Australopithecus sediba died out because it didn't shift its diet to the foods of the savanna, "but one could make such an argument if indeed this was an organism tied to very specific microhabitats by a limited dietary repertoire." A different argument could be made as well: Perhaps the descendants of Au. sediba eventually adapted to a diet that took in C4 as well as C3 foods, and thus contributed to the rise of early Homo.
Passey, for one, would love to study more specimens. "It would be nice to analyze those and see if all members of that species have that same forest behavior," he told me. However those future experiments turn out, the findings reported today show how novel techniques — ranging from precision laser blasting to tooth-crud analysis — can shed light on the origin of our species.
More about human origins:
- Was there a fork in our family tree?
- Humans had sex with now-extinct relatives
- Fossils shake up humanity's family tree
- Savannas may have nurtured human ancestors
In addition to Henry, Sponheimer and Passey, the authors of "The Diet of Australopithecus Sediba" include Peter S. Ungar, Lloyd Rossouw, Marion Bamford, Paul Sandberg, Darryl J. de Ruiter and Lee Berger. The paper, published online today, will appear in a future print edition of Nature.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.


Let the Evolution War commence!
It's only a "war" here in the States. The rest of the civilized world has long moved on. Unfortunately, us Americans just can't shake our fairies and goblins ... faaaarrrr too many illusions of grandeur to ever admit we are merely part of a natural system.
What? No reference to Justin Beaver in this story?
Fossils are just God's little jokes and the evolution crowd fell for it. What a guy. What a sense of humor.
You know I'm kidding right? :-)
Yup. ;-)
Great article Alan. I enjoy reading about the innovative techniques scientists are employing in order to better understand the behavior of hominid and prehominid. Keep up the good work!
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
If we came from England, why are there still English people?
How does this keep happening? The minute you use the word "monkey", you admit to everyone that you don't know a thing about evolution. Did you think that your pamphlets actually prepared you to go toe to toe with the scientific world in debate. Those were just meant to convince you NOT to study it. So either follow them and go away...or actually do some real research and post something intelligent.
Logan-Nobody tells me to ride on!
If God had meant us to eat like chimps, He would have made our bananas easier to reach
I don't even know what that means
What are you talking about ... my banana has superb reaching capability.
But bananas fit so perfectly into our hands and mouths that god clearly made them to be eaten by humans, according to Ray "banana man" Comfort and his boy wonder.
Banana Man
Never mind that bananas were only bred over the last century or so!
I just lol'd so damn hard at Chad's comment. Bravo. Good stuff.
Something about a jumbo jet and a junk yard in a cyclone!
Checkmate atheists!
Shuklack, Here is a link to how there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Evolution is the result of a combination of factors. Although some random variation is required, natural selection is the driving force. Natural selection, combined with the multiplication of the selected characteristic due to excess fertility is the main component. Sex allows the combination of selected characteristics to produce more rapid evolution. The jumbo jet and junk yard analogy is a version of a straw man argument in that it is created just to be knocked down.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The evolution of humans and obviously similar apes from a common ancestor is not an extraordinary claim. Basic evolution has been observed. Supporting evidence in the form of fossils, anatomy, and DNA comparison is consistent with evolution. Divine creation is an extraordinary claim and lacks supporting evidence. One book, (the bible) which contains two somewhat different creation myths in the first two chapters, is not very convincing.
The folks who make the jet and junkyard comparison don't understand the 2nd law of thermo. Even Hoyle, who created this cliche, knew it wasn't applicable. And atheism has zip to do with evolution.
By the by...Alan Boyle is, IMHO, the best science writer of the MSM today...
I guess ya'll don't watch Ed Current's satire on youtube.
He makes horrible arguments, and ends them with "Checkmate Atheists!"
I thought the fact I was being facetious was obvious enough without needing to know the reference. I guess not.
Shuklack, after I posted, I thought you might have been facetious. I do not watch Ed Current and did not catch the satire until I read some of your other posts.
And now we can enjoy foods from around the globe in one meal ....
With our nice healthy pearly whites or cavity filled teeth , cosmetically enhanced teeth , implanted teeth , synthetic dentures and partials ....
This article is making me want to go use my teeth on a scrumptious well rounded food group type lunch ....
I hope I can get that in a sub .... "LOL"
Thanks Alan ....
I would imagine that they ate what ever they had handy and realized was eatable. I don't think they had a McDonalds back then or Pizza King, just saying.
But you can't be sure..
Another piece of science-fiction.
What .... that primates have teeth?
If it doesn't jibe with my book filled with true accounts of talking snakes and donkeys, walking on water, burning bushes and the Son of God, cursing a barren tree to death for not producting fruit on command, it can't possibly be true! I'm with you, Ray M!
And yet you are here..
.
Come on now, I for one would like to see Ray's logical, scientific objection to this study. So let's have it, Ray. What do you find objectional about this, and why do you think it is not sound science?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a legitimate response though.
Sort of looks like a republican, especially around the eyes....
Sorry guys I couldn't help myself. I hate it when that happens...
5000 comments on a story about whether Charlie Sheen should be allowed to have another television show and 17 here.
The human race is doomed.
Funny where some peoples interests are ....
Ate like a chimp, walked like a chimp, climbed trees like a chimp....hmmm wonder what it was?
Australopithecus sediba
a chimp?
Tooth-crud analysis? I wish MSNBC would keep its scientific mumbo jumbo to a minimum.
j/k :) Interesting article.
so the teeth are the actual teeth and not fossilized? in our mouth, they can just rot away. the bone then is replaced by stone, right around the tooth. tough stuff enamel. wowzers! do i have that right?
I remember fossilization used to be thought of as an all or nothing process. Instead it is a continuum between unaltered bone and/or teeth to the complete replacement by minerals. In the first stage of fossilization, cavities in the bone/teeth are filled with minerals. This makes the fossilized bone very dense. It used to be assumed that the soft tissue and original bone were lost. That is frequently not true. High degraded protein remnants have even been found in some well preserved 68 million year old dinosaur fossils. Link
cool. good info. don't know why i never read up on it. thanks.
Obama 2012
No thank you ....
Yes thank you!
HA! I just cancelled you out, bigbenalaska! Dontcha just love Democracy?
You have to ....
I won't vote again here 99octane ....
But I'm still thinking Obama out in 2012 .... "LOL"
it's good to see a touch of a sense of humor on the ragged subject.
Ahem. Your cousin is not your ancestor (well, maybe in SOME families). This article says explicitly that it's a study of one of our ancestors and might explain why our ancestors' diet made us successful. Then it turns out that the australopithecine species in question is not in our ancestral line at all, having gone extinct at the same time as another species, H. erectus, gave rise to us. Could this be fixed?
now its clear where the Obamas and his people come from and I don't mean the country,,, Kenya ,, It not hard to see...It has long been known that the black resemble the monkeys in many ways....the cheekbones,,hands down that reach their knees..their animal way of life. I often wondered why they want everything free and don't want to work for food..they steal alot....their instinct...forest free food. they have come along way...now they demand being in all movies as leading roles..and all tv commercials and their own tv networks..they want it all... for free..!