New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Ancient Tartar Shows Our Ancestors Ate Bark

Ancient tartar shows our ancestors ate bark and some other surprising foods

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A recent scientific discovery had researchers buzzing about, of all things, tartar. That's right, the crusty deposits that the dentist scrapes off your teeth when you go for a cleaning. Except in this case, it was the tartar on the teeth of the nearly two-million-year-old Australopithecus sediba, which has been held up as a candidate ancestor for our genus, Homo. No one had ever before found tartar in an early hominin (a creature on the line leading to humans, after the split from the line leading to chimpanzees). And in analyzing the ancient tartar, the researchers had recovered evidence of what A. sediba ate. It wasn't at all what they expected.

In a paper published in July in Nature, Amanda Henry of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and their colleagues report on tartar, tooth chemistry and wear-mark analyses conducted on an adult female and a subadult male found at a site just outside Johannesburg. Their tooth chemistry indicated that over their lifetime they dined mostly on trees and shrubs (or, possibly, animals that ate those foods). This is surprising because other hominins of similar antiquity relied more heavily on tropical grasses and sedges.

The tartar analysis yielded traces of plant foods no one thought our ancient kin ate, such as bark. Berger notes that many primates use bark as a fallback food during times when fruit is hard to come by. He has speculated that the


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


hominins, whose remains were recovered from what was once a deep underground cave, may have ended up there because drought conditions drove them to try to access a pool of water inside. The bark finding could bolster that scenario.

Conventional wisdom holds that Homo adapted to changing environmental conditions that favored the spread of grasslands by incorporating meat into its diet. A. sediba has small teeth, which are associated with an increase in higher-quality foods such as meat, and dexterous hands that may have been capable of making tools. So did A. sediba eat meat? With the “type of data we are getting, I think we will reach answers to these questions,” Berger says.

COMMENT ATScientificAmerican.com/sep2012

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong
Scientific American Magazine Vol 307 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Tooth Sleuths” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 307 No. 3 (), p. 28
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0912-28a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe