Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Further confirmation of the humanlike morphology of the Kanapoi humerus (KNM KP 271) came from anthropologists Henry M. McHenry and Robert S. Corruccini of the University of California. Using multivariate analysis techniques, they compared 16 different measurements of the Kanapoi humerus with those of the humeri of all species of anthropoid apes, three species of monkeys, and two fossil hominids—Kromdraai (TM 1517) and East Rudolf (ER 739). McHenry and Corruccini (1975, p. 227) concluded that “the hominid fossil from Kanapoi resembles Homo sapiens very closely.” Elsewhere in the same study they noted: “The Kanapoi fossil is quite close to Homo, especially the Eskimo sample” (McHenry and Corruccini 1975, p. 235). Amplifying this, they stated that “the Kanapoi humerus is barely distinguishable from modern Homo” and “shows the early emergence of a Homo-like elbow in every subtle detail” (McHenry and Corruccini 1975, p. 240).

In an earlier study, McHenry (1973) wrote: “A humeral fragment has been found at Kanapoi that is almost five million years old yet almost indistinguishable in shape from many modern humeri. Geologically much younger australopithecine humeri at one or two million years are vastly different from those of modern man.” In his Harvard doctoral thesis, McHenry (1972, p. 95) stated that the Kana poi humerus fell “within the human range.” We have employed a simple multivariate analysis technique to evaluate the raw data supplied by McHenry in his thesis. We calculated the 16-dimensional vectors represented by his 16 measurements for each humerus, and took the size of the angles between any two vectors as indicators of the degree of similarity between the two humeri. A smaller angle means a greater similarity. This method, it should be noted, is size-independent. In other words, bones of the same conformation, though being of different size, will show a difference of zero degrees. Confirming McHenry, we found that at 2.75 degrees the Kanapoi humerus vector was closest to Homo sapiens. For comparison, the angle of Kanapoi with chimpanzee was 4.40 degrees. With Australopithecus robustus (Kromdraai TM 1517) the angle was 4.51 degrees, and with Australopithecus boisei ( East Rudolf) it was 4.83 degrees. In other words, the Kanapoi humerus differed from those of the australopithecines.

C. E. Oxnard (1975a, p. 97) agreed with McHenry’s analysis. He stated: “we can confirm clearly that the fossil from Kanapoi is very humanlike.” In his discussion, Oxnard pointed out that the Kanapoi humerus, although 4 million years old, was quite modern in form, while the australopithecine humeri from later periods were much less so. This led Oxnard (1975a, p. 121) to suggest, as did Louis Leakey, that the australopithecines were not in the main line of human evolution. Keeping Australopithecus as a human ancestor would result in a very unlikely progression from the humanlike Kanapoi humerus, to the markedly less humanlike humerus of Australopithecus, and then to one more humanlike again.

Michael A. Day (1978, p. 315) said about the Kanapoi humerus: “it is hard to point to a single anatomical feature or group of features that is not well known in modern man. Functionally it must be nearly identical with the modern human condition.”

A dissenting view may be found in a study by Marc R. Feldesman, of Portland State University in Oregon. From his own multivariate analysis of 15 fossil humeri and humeri of 22 species of monkey and apes, Feldesman (1982a, p. 73) concluded: “The Kanapoi distal humerus (KP 271), far from being more ‘human-like’ than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana.” The Lake Turkana specimen closest to KP 271, according to Feldesman, was ER 739, now thought to represent Australopithecus boisei. This is exactly the reverse of McHenry’s conclusion. McHenry found that KP 271 was close to Homo sapiens and distant from ER 739. Because Feldesman did not supply his raw data in his report, we could not evaluate his results.

In our discussion of fossil discoveries in China (Section 9.2.1), we made extensive use of the concept of possible date ranges. That is to say, when confronted with reports giving different ages for certain fossils, we established a range of possibilities that included all likely ages. Here we want to introduce a similar concept—that of possible morphology ranges. Concerning the Kanapoi humerus, we can say, on the basis of the reports we have cited, that its morphology range extends to the modern human end of the spectrum.

11.5.2 The Gombore Humerus

In 1977, French researchers (Chavaillon et al. 1977) reported finding a humanlike humerus at the Gombore site in Ethiopia, about 55 kilometers south of the capital, Addis Ababa.