Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

In this regard, Johanson cited Charles A. Reed, of the University of Illinois, who said: “No matter that Zuckerman wrote of such characters as being ‘often inconspicuous’; the important point was the presence of several such incipient characters in functional combinations. This latter point of view was one which, in my opinion, Zuckerman and his co-workers failed to grasp, even while they stated that they did. Their approach . . . was extremely static in that they essentially demanded that a fossil to be considered by them to show any evidence of evolving toward living humans, must have essentially arrived at the latter status before they would regard it as having begun the evolutionary journey” (Johanson and Edey 1981, p. 76).

In citing Reed against Zuckerman in this way, Johanson was being somewhat hypocritical. Johanson and others sharing his views certainly did not characterize Australopithecus as an apelike creature with “incipient” human features. Rather they said Australopithecus was practically human from the neck down, especially in terms of humanlike bipedal locomotion. In other words, Johanson and others were themselves guilty of insisting that a distant ancestor of living humans had “essentially arrived at the latter status.” Reacting to this exaggerated claim, Zuckerman, and later Oxnard, were just saying it was wrong, and that the anatomy and locomotor behavior of Australopithecus were essentially apelike.

Johanson, Reed, and others have also ignored the implications of findings by Oxnard and Zuckerman that Australopithecus had anatomical features that were uniquely different from those of apes and modern humans (Section 11.8.5). Contrary to the usual view, Australopithecus was not, according to Oxnard and Zuckerman, morphologically intermediate between humans and apes. Thus it is unlikely that Australopithecus was a human ancestor, unless one wants to invoke an evolutionary path that took the human line on a big australopithecine detour.

One point that Oxnard made in response to critics of his somewhat complicated mathematical approach was that simple visual evidence also established his conclusion that Australopithecus had a significant degree of quadrupedal, acrobatic, and suspensory capability.

For example, Oxnard observed that the articular, or joint, surfaces of the lower limbs of human beings are large relative to the articular surfaces of the upper limbs. Oxnard (1984, p. 316) stated: “This befits their bipedal status in which the lower limb takes all the body weight.”

Simple visual inspection also revealed that in African apes the articular surfaces of the upper and lower limbs are more equal in size. According to Oxnard (1984, p. 316), this indicates a pattern of behavior “in which both limbs participate in bearing the body weight (and the upper limbs somewhat more than the lower, however that may be, whether through quadrupedal knuckle-walking on the ground or through quadrumanal climbing in the trees).” Quadrumanal (fourhanded) climbing involves use of grasping hands and handlike feet by arboreal primates such as the gibbon and orangutan. In fact, in the gibbon and orangutan, which move through the trees mainly by using their arms, the articular surfaces of the upper limbs are larger than those of the lower limbs.

Oxnard (1984, p. 316) noted that as far as Australopithecus is concerned, “the fossils . . . resemble most, among living primates, the equivalent parts from apes (and among the apes, the orang-utan) more closely than they do humans.” Like orangutans, Australopithecus has larger articular surfaces in the upper limbs than the lower (Oxnard 1975a, pp. 117–119). “These facts should be set alongside the comment of Richard Leakey (1973c), who reports that preliminary indications point to a relatively short lower limb and a long upper limb for the australopithecines,” said Oxnard (1984, p. 316). Such proportions are decidely apelike and, along with the proportions of the articular surfaces, suggest a component of orangutanlike forelimb suspension in the locomotor repertoire.

Oxnard did not deny that Australopithecus manifested bipedal behavior. After all, apes can also walk on two legs in some fashion. Nevertheless, Oxnard (1984, p. 316) concluded about the australopithecines: “however able these creatures were at walking on two legs, they were also convincing quadrupeds and perhaps excellent climbers, feats denied to man today.” Oxnard (1984, p. 316) warned: “Such findings must make us wonder whether the australopithecine pattern of bipedal adaptation really reflects a transitional phase to man.” In other words, he doubted the common belief that Australopithecus is a human ancestor.

11.8.5 Implications of Uniqueness