Editing Homo habilis (section)

===Diet===
[[File:Elife-24232-fig11-v1 Comparison of Homo naledi mandibles to other hominin species, from lateral view.jpg|left|thumb|upright|OH 13 mandible compared to other hominin species]]
It is thought ''H. habilis'' derived meat from scavenging rather than hunting (scavenger hypothesis), acting as a confrontational scavenger and stealing kills from smaller predators such as [[jackal]]s or [[cheetah]]s.<ref name=Cavallo1989>{{cite journal|first1=J. A.|last1=Cavallo|first2=R. J.|last2=Blumenschine|year=1989|title=Tree-stored leopard kills: expanding the hominid scavenging niche|journal=Journal of Human Evolution|volume=18|issue=4|pages=393–399|doi=10.1016/0047-2484(89)90038-9}}</ref> Fruit was likely also an important dietary component, indicated by dental erosion consistent with repetitive exposure to acidity.<ref>{{cite journal|first=P.-F.|last=Peuch|year=1984|title=Acidic-Food Choice in ''Homo habilis'' at Olduvai|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=25|issue=3|pages=349–350|doi=10.1086/203146|s2cid=143857086}}</ref> Based on [[dental microwear]]-texture analysis, ''H. habilis'' (like other early ''Homo'') likely did not regularly consume tough foods. Microwear-texture complexity is, on average, somewhere between that of tough-food eaters and leaf eaters ([[folivore]]s),<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ungar|first=Peter|date=9 February 2012|title=Dental Evidence for the Reconstruction of Diet in African Early ''Homo''|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=53|pages=S318–S329|doi=10.1086/666700|s2cid=84437780}}</ref> and points to an increasingly [[generalist and specialist species|generalised]] and [[omnivorous]] diet.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Dental Microwear and Diets of African Early ''Homo''|last1 = Ungar|first1 = Peter|date =1 January 2006|journal = Journal of Human Evolution|doi = 10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.08.007|pmid = 16226788|last2 = Grine|first2 = Frederick|last3 = Teaford|first3 = Mark|last4 = Zaatari|first4 = Sireen |volume=50 |issue = 1|pages=78–95}}</ref> Freshwater fish likely were also consumed, evidenced by the findings of fish remains at archaeological sites most likely associated with ''H. habilis''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stewart |first=Kathlyn M. |date=1 July 1994 |title=Early hominid utilisation of fish resources and implications for seasonality and behaviour |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724848471044X |journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]] |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=229–245 |doi=10.1006/jhev.1994.1044 |issn=0047-2484 |access-date=4 February 2024 |via=Elsevier Science Direct}}</ref>

It is typically thought that the diets of ''H. habilis'' and other early ''Homo'' had a greater proportion of meat than ''Australopithecus'', and that this led to brain growth. The main hypotheses regarding this are: meat is energy- and nutrient-rich and put evolutionary pressure on developing enhanced cognitive skills to facilitate strategic scavenging and monopolise fresh carcasses, or meat allowed the large and calorie-expensive ape gut to decrease in size allowing this energy to be diverted to brain growth. Alternatively, it is also suggested that early ''Homo'', in a drying climate with scarcer food options, relied primarily on underground [[storage organ]]s (such as [[tuber]]s) and food sharing, which facilitated social bonding among both male and female group members. However, unlike what is presumed for ''H. ergaster'' and later ''Homo'', short-statured early ''Homo'' are generally considered to have been incapable of [[Endurance running hypothesis|endurance running]] and hunting, and the long and ''Australopithecus''-like forearm of ''H. habilis'' could indicate early ''Homo'' were still arboreal to a degree. Also, organised [[hunting and gathering]] is thought to have emerged in ''H. ergaster''. Nonetheless, the proposed food-gathering models to explain large brain growth necessitate increased daily travel distance.<ref>{{cite journal|first=H.|last=Pontzer|year=2012|title=Ecological Energetics in Early ''Homo''|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=56|issue=6|pages=346–358|doi=10.1086/667402|s2cid=31461168}}</ref> It has also been argued that ''H. habilis'' instead had long, modern humanlike legs and was fully capable of effective long distance travel, while still remaining at least partially arboreal.<ref name=Haeusler2004/>

Large [[incisor]] size in ''H. habilis'' compared to ''Australopithecus'' predecessors implies this species relied on incisors more. The [[Mandible#Body|bodies of the mandibles]] of ''H. habilis'' and other early ''Homo'' are thicker than those of modern humans and all living apes, more comparable to ''Australopithecus''. The mandibular body resists torsion from the [[bite force]] or chewing, meaning their jaws could produce unusually powerful stresses while eating. The greater molar [[cusp (anatomy)|cusp]] [[relief]] in ''H. habilis'' compared to ''Australopithecus'' suggests the former used tools to fracture tough foods (such as pliable plant parts or meat), otherwise the cusps would have been more worn down. Nonetheless, the jaw adaptations for processing mechanically challenging food indicates technological advancement did not greatly affect diet.<ref name=Ungar2006/>