Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Oxnard believed there is much that remains to be known about Australopithecus, and that what we do know does not conform to the customary image of this creature. Oxnard (1975a, p. 123) observed: “All of this makes us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in encyclopedias and popular publications, where not only are the australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but where, in addition, such characteristics as bipedality . . . and even facial features are happily reconstructed.”

TABLE 11.5

Anatomical Features cited by s. Zuckerman and c. e. oxnard Indicating that Australopithecines Were not human Ancestors

Brain:

“endocranial casts of the Australopithecinae . . . do not appear to diverge in any material way from existing apes” (Zuckerman 1954, p. 305).

“estimates of endocranial volume do not depart from the range of size met with in the great apes” (Zuckerman 1954, p. 304).

“suggestions that the Australopithecinae may have had higher relative brain weights than, say, chimpanzees” have not been substantiated (Zuckerman 1954, p. 304).

Teeth and jaws:

“with the exception of their incisors and canines, the size and general shape of the [australopithecine] jaws and teeth . . . were very much more like those of the living apes than like acknowledged members of the Hominidae, either living or extinct” (Zuckerman 1954, pp. 306–307).

Shape of skull:

“resembles. . . . the ape—so much so that only detailed and close studies can reveal the difference between them” (Zuckerman 1954, p. 307).

Shoulder Bone (sterkfontein sts 7 scapula):

“does not resemble that of man to any degree. . . . almost as well-adapted structurally for suspension of the body by the limbs as is the corresponding part of

the present-day gibbon. . . . more specialized in this respect than in even the highly specialized chimpanzee” (Oxnard 1968, p. 215). Oxnard dismissed suggestions that the Sterkfontein scapula was too distorted to yield accurate measurements. He also rejected accusations that the scapula was nonhominid.

Has an abnormally large area for attachment of the biceps muscle, which must have been extraordinarily well developed, as it is in the gibbons (Oxnard 1968, p. 215).

Collar Bone (olduvai oh 48 Homo habilis clavicle):

 “whereas in humans the clavicle is scarcely twisted at all, in the various apes, as in the Olduvai clavicle, it is heavily twisted. This particular feature does not fit with the idea that the fossils are functionally close to man” (Oxnard 1984, p. 323). Oxnard, like others (Section 11.7.5), considered Homo habilis to be an australopithecine.

Hand Bones:

“quite different from those of humans. . . . evidence seems to relate to abilities for grasping with power reminiscent of what we find in the orang-utan. . . . some are curved enough that they must have operated in this arboreal-grasping mode” (Oxnard 1984, p. 311, citing Susman 1979, Susman and Creel 1979, Susman and Stern 1979).

Engineering stress analysis showed Australopithecus fingers were inefficient in the chimpanzee knuckle-walking mode but “efficient in the hanging-climbing mode as also is the orang-utan” (Oxnard 1984, p. 313). Human finger structure was “inefficient in both modes” (Oxnard 1984, p. 314).

Pelvis (including sterkfontein Sts 14):

“although there is no doubt about the similarity in shape of the iliac bones of man and Sterkfontein pelvis . . . it is also clear that this blade is positioned quite differently in man and the fossil” (Oxnard 1975a, p. 52).

Joint structure in the australopithecine hip “apparently not inconsistent with quadrupedalism” (Zuckerman et al. 1973, p. 152).

Muscle attachments not “inconsistent with . . . an occasional or habitual quadrupedal gait” (Zuckerman et al. 1973, p. 152).

Pelvic structure points to hindlimb capable of “an ‘acrobatic’ function” (Zuckerman et al. 1973, p. 156).

Pubis and ischium (bones of the lower part of the pelvis) chimpanzeelike (Zuckerman 1954, p. 313).

Femurs:

“show the small heads and inclined femoral necks that might be expected in animals capable of quadrupedal activities” (Oxnard 1975b, p. 394).

Talus (ankle bone):

“the general morphological similarity . . . is with the aboreal ape Pongo” (Oxnard 1975a, pp. 86–87). Pongo is the orangutan.

“in the shape of their talus, the . . . fossils may be reflecting functions of the foot that may relate to acrobatic aboreal climbing such as is reminiscent of the extant species Pongo” (Oxnard 1975a, p. 89).

conclusion: