Homo- taxonomic Genus of the Lineage of the Modern Human Species.

Defining Homo: 1769, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach

They used physical or anatomical features of the fossils or fragments
recovered in identifying Genus such as:
- A chin
- Small Jaws
- Small canines abutting small incisors
- Large Braincase balanced atop a vertical vertebral column
- Erect posture
- Bowl shaped pelvic girdle
- Buttocks
- Long thumb
- Bipedalism
Defining Homo: 1963, Ernst Mayr
Generalized the Criterion into 4 major features:
1. Brain size over 600 cubic centimeters
2. Limb, hand and foot proportion is similar to modern humans
3. Ability to communicate through language
4. Ability to manufacture stone tools
*According to Rick Potts, a paleoanthropologist and the Director of
the Smithsonian’s Human Origin Program of the National Museum for
Natural History in Washington, D.C., the Brain size was the original
preferred defining feature for Homo.

Homo Habilis

Basic Information:

Locality: Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania; Koobi Fora, Kenya; Omo and

Hadar,Ethiopia;Sterkfontein, South Africa.
Name Meaning: Handy-Man
Age:2.4–1.6 mya. (Dated using absolute dates from layers of volcanic
ash and basalt above and below the fossils)
Fossil Record: Several skulls and sections of crania, fragments of
hand, arm, leg, and foot bones, and a partia skeleton

This species was named Homo habilis, meaning “Handy-man,” because

some of its fossils are associated with early stone tools. (By Louis
Leaky)

They are the first member of the genus Homo that appears in the fossil
record and are associated with the earliest stone-tool technology. This
species is characterized by a moderately large brain and modestly sized
molars and premolars compared to earlier hominins.
 Issues
Additionally, Homo Habilis is more similar in size and body type
to Australopithecus. The case with the two is that the Homo Habilis’
brain is bigger than the average of the Australopith but the brain of
the subsequent specimens have been smaller, between 340 and 500 cubic
centimeters.

But Homo habilis is more similar in size and body type to

Australopithecus. The original fossil described by Leakey had a brain
slightly bigger than the average Australopith, but the brains of
subsequent specimens have been smaller, between 340 and 500 cubic
centimeters. “If you include Homo habilis in Homo, you end up including
a species that had limb proportions that are closer to Australopithecus,
as well as dentition and a jaw whose scaling in relation to body mass
is closer to Australopithecus and a brain size closer to
Australopithecus,” Wood says. “A good place to draw the line” is between
Australopiths and Homo, he says, adding that Homo rudolfensis, a species
known from a handful of fossils found in Kenya, should also be left out
of genus Homo.

However, just because Homo habilis does not belong in Homo doesn’t mean
it’s an Australopith, Tattersall says. “My sense is that Homo habilis
should belong to its own genus, neither Australopith nor human,” he says.
“Chucking out Homo habilis makes sense because it makes Homo a
morphological mess. It certainly tidies up the [Homo] genus, but stuffing
it into Australopithecus just reinforces this notion that if something
is not an Australopith it has to be Homo and vice versa. We need a bit
more taxonomic elbow room to express the simple variety of morphology
we see in the hominin fossil record.”

Discovery:
In the early 1960s, fossil fragments were excavated at Olduvai
Gorge, Tanzania, from deposits slightly older than those in which “Zinj”
had been found in 1959.

They included a partial cranium, mandible, hand bones, and a near-

complete left foot. The first three were grouped as specimen OH7, the foot as OH8.
In 1961, Louis Leakey concluded that these finds were a different species from “Zinj,”
one more closely related to modern humans and capable of making the stone
tools found at Olduvai. In 1964, after more fossil discoveries, Leakey,
paleoanthropologist Phillip Tobias, and paleontologist John Napier
described the collection as Homo habilis.

Additional Proof:
 DEINOTHERIUM
Remains of this elephant-like mammal, which was around 13 ft (4 m)
high at the shoulder, have been found at all the major sites in East
Africa where hominids have been found, including at Olduvai. It also has
a shorter trunk than a modern elephant.

Physical Features:

JAWS AND TEETH

● The lower face of Homo habilis is more slender than that of
Australopithecus or Paranthropus species.
● The molars and premolars are narrow and reduced in overall
size, which could suggest a diet requiring less chewing or
perhaps better quality foods eaten in smaller quantities.
● The incisors, and especially the canines, are relatively
large and the whole front tooth row is expanded.
● Although the palate is short, the region of bone holding the
roots of the teeth is long and well separated from the nasal
opening.
● The body of the lower jaw, or mandible, is less deep than in
australopithecines, with a receding chin, and the base of
the mandible is rounded.

Illustration

OH7 JAW
Jaws are particularly
useful finds, especially if, like
the jaw of OH7, they retain many
of their teeth. The relative
importance of the back grinding
teeth and the front shearing
teeth can tell us a great deal
about the diet of our ancestors,
and suggests that H. habilis ate
more meat than other primates.

FEET
The foot of H. habilis is in
many ways similar to that of
modern humans in that it had
limited mobility at most joints,
short toes, alignment of the four smaller toes, and a moderate arch. It
is likely that the big toe was not held as close to the others as it was
in later Homo species.

OH8 FOOT
This specimen is one of the most complete feet known for any fossil
hominin, missing only the toes and part of the heel bone. It belonged
to a young H. habilis who suffered from arthritis after sustaining an
injury to the foot.

BODY AND LIMBS

Few of the presumed Homo habilis skulls have been found with
associated skeletons. The limited evidence suggests that the hand was
wide, with a large thumb capable of a precision grip. The gait, although
probably bipedal, may have been different to that from modern humans.

CRANIUM
The cranium of Homo habilis is rounded and relatively gracile
(lightly built), with an estimated cranial capacity of 36–43 cubic in
(600–700 cubic cm). The frontal region is expanded compared to the
australopithecines, and some specimens have marked neck-muscle
attachment areas at the back of the skull.

KNM-ER 1813 CRANIUM

The KNM-ER 1813 cranium was found in relatively good condition. It
is smaller than many of the other H. habilis finds but has stronger brow
ridges than larger specimens.
FACE
Compared to the australopithecines, the face is
small and lightly built. There is a continuous bony
brow ridge above both orbits, which are widely spaced.
A clear spine exists for the attachment of the nose
septum, and the whole face projects slightly forward.

SMALL SKULL
- Although quite similar to its australopithecine
ancestors in other respects, H. habilis’s face
looked more human because of its shorter jaw and smaller chewing
muscles.

TOOLS
The oldest known stone-tool
technology, from Gona, Ethiopia, is
dated to approximately 2.5
million years ago. These assemblages
consist of simple flakes, cores, and
hammerstones, typical of the Oldowan
tool industry first described by Mary Leakey at
Olduvai Gorge. Traditionally, it has been
thought that stone-tool making was a defining
characteristic of early Homo, but few assemblages
are directly associated with Homo fossils. Anthropologists
are reconsidering whether other species, including
Paranthropus boisei, might have made or used stone tools, and also whether tools made from perishable
materials such as sticks and leaves could have predated the use of stone.

Oldowan Tools
 Louis and Mary Leakey were initially drawn to work at Olduvai Gorge
by the richness of its archaeology—in particular, discoveries of stone
tools made of basalt, quartz, and quartzite that were derived from
extremely ancient geological deposits dating from between 2.2 and 1.7
million years ago. Many thousands of artifacts were collected through
surface survey and excavation. Mary Leakey painstakingly analyzed them, and she was
the first to describe and name the tool types, such as choppers and hammerstones, which
together became known as the Oldowan tool industry. This simple,
effective stone-tool technology was used for at least 700,000 years
across sub-Saharan Africa.
TOOL TYPES
The earliest Olduwan tools are mainly made from cobbles of rough
stone such as basalt, quartz, and quartzite, struck with a hammerstone
to produce cores and sharp flakes for cutting.

STONE KNAPPING
A chopper can be made by striking flakes from a rounded cobble
using another stone, to give a sharp cutting edge. This requires learning
and good hand/eye coordination. Tools made in this way may have been
used to butcher carcasses or chop plant material

CORE CHOPPER
Homo habilis would probably have
used a stone chopper to dismember a
carcass, then crush the animal’s
bones for the marrow within them. A
chopper would have been produced when flakes
were detached from a chunk of rock to leave a core.
Although crude, they would have had
sharp edges, which made them
versatile tools.

BUTCHERING A CARCASS
Sharp flakes— produced by a hammerstone
striking a core—would have been ideal for removing an
animal’s skin, scraping the hide, and slicing the meat.
Some animal bones found in fossil beds associated with
Homo habilis are thought to bear cut marks produced by
using tools to strip meat from the bones.

MAKING TOOLS
Homo habilis may have been the first hominin
species to make stone tools, although there is some
evidence to suggest that earlier hominins such as australopithecines may
have used stones to smash animal bones. The Oldowan tool industry, with
which H. habilis is associated, was the precursor of all tool making
traditions.