Humanlike manual activities in Australopithecus

Abstract

The evolution of the human hand is a topic of great interest in paleoanthropology. As the hand can be involved in a vast array of activities, knowledge regarding how it was used by early hominins can yield crucial information on the factors driving biocultural evolution. Previous research on early hominin hands focused on the overall bone shape. However, while such approaches can inform on mechanical abilities and the evolved efficiency of manipulation, they cannot be used as a definite proxy for individual habitual activity. Accordingly, it is crucial to examine bone structures more responsive to lifetime biomechanical loading, such as muscle attachment sites or internal bone architecture. In this study, we investigate the manual entheseal patterns of Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus sediba through the application of the validated entheses-based reconstruction of activity method. Using a comparative sample of later Homo and three great ape genera, we analyze the muscle attachment site proportions on the thumb, fifth ray, and third intermediate phalanx to gain insight into the habitual hand use of Australopithecus. We use a novel statistical procedure to account for the effects of interspecies variation in overall size and ray proportions. Our results highlight the importance of certain muscles of the first and fifth digits for humanlike hand use. In humans, these muscles are required for variable in-hand manipulation and are activated during stone-tool production. The entheses of A. sediba suggest muscle activation patterns consistent with a similar suite of habitual manual activities as in later Homo. In contrast, A. africanus and A. afarensis display a mosaic entheseal pattern that combines indications of both humanlike and apelike manipulation. Overall, these findings provide new evidence that some australopith species were already habitually engaging in humanlike manipulation, even if their manual dexterity was likely not as high as in later Homo.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.