Unsurprisingly, palaeoanthropologists pay a great deal of attention to teeth and have friendly relations with dentists. The tendency of our ancestors’ remains to be gnawed and otherwise dismembered left more of them around than other skeletal bits and pieces. Based on the old adage that we are what we eat, teeth reveal a great deal about hominin habits. They also take up trace elements from the environment in which individuals lived at an early age, thereby giving hints to migration. Astonishingly, tooth enamel grows day by day, and tooth development can be charted with great precision. Together with the timing at which different teeth erupt in juveniles, fossil dental records potentially allow researchers to detect when in human evolution the unusually extended childhood of humans first appeared, and whether it developed gradually or suddenly. The particular focus is on teeth from prematurely deceased hominins.
Modern humans’ rates of enamel growth is much slower than that in apes. Despite the many signs of a profound physiological differentiation between apes, australopithecines and early species of Homo, as far as tooth growth goes, they are all similar (Dean, C. et al. 2001. Growth processes in teeth distinguish modern humans from Homo erectus and earlier hominins. Nature, v. 414., p. 628-631). The teeth of each grew faster than in modern humans. In dentition at least, there is little sign of an advance in childhood development even in anatomically very modern-looking H. erectus. That must have taken place in early modern humans, and needs to be checked in them and our co-descendants, the Neanderthals.
Teeth provide by no means the whole story. The near-complete skeleton of the famous Turkana Boy provides lines to suggest that when he died, his growth was well within the range of modern human development (Moggi-Cecchi, J. 2001. Questions of growth. Nature, v. 414, p. 595-596). It seems unwise to rely entirely on teeth. One possibility is that several important features (brain size, growth of tooth enamel, and even bipedalism) may have undergone repeated evolution – two steps forward, one step back?