Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

After reviewing studies by Oxnard and others, agreed that “the locomotor system of Australopithecus africanus was unique— not simply an intermediate stage between us and apes.” He found the same to be true of other species of Australopithecus. This fact, along with other aspects of the hominid fossil record, caused him to suggest that “non-Darwinian” principles were required to explain an evolutionary progression from Australopithecus to modern human beings (Groves 1989, p. 316).

11.8.6 Oxnard on the Antiquity of Homo

Like Louis and Richard Leakey, Oxnard believed that the Homo line was far more ancient than the standard evolutionary scenario allows. In this connection, Oxnard called attention to some of the fossils we have previously discussed, such as the humanlike ER 813 talus, over 1.5 million years old (Section 11.6.4). “Description and examination using multivariate methods [Wood 1974a] confirms that it is indeed similar to modern man and unlike the australopithecine specimens,” said Oxnard (1975b, p. 394). He also mentioned the Kanapoi humerus, perhaps

4 or more million years old. Citing research by B. Patterson and W. W. Howells (1967), Oxnard (1975b, p. 394) said the Kanapoi humerus had been “shown to be very similar to that of modern man.” His own research backed up that judgement (Oxnard 1975a). From such evidence, Oxnard (1984, p. 332) concluded that the genus Homo was 5 or more million years old.

Oxnard (1975b, p. 395) predicted that “more evidence of earlier forms that are more like man than australopithecines will be found.” He held that such “fossil remnants will be discovered outside Africa because . . . human or prehuman populations must have existed in other places, with migrations, and with multiple evolutionary lines.” But as we have seen in Part I, much evidence for completely humanlike forms existing at very early times has already been found, in Europe and the Americas as well as Africa. Such evidence is so extensive that talk of evolutionary lines, either single or multiple, becomes problematic.

All one can say with certainty is that various humanlike and apelike creatures seem to have coexisted for millions of years into the past. Oxnard (1975b, p. 395) approached this interpretation when he suggested: “We may have to accept that the australopithecine form (or forms) of locomotion, tool using, and tool making may be merely one (or more) unsuccessful evolutionary experiments existing in parallel with those of man.” Here the mention of tool using and making refers to Homo habilis, which Oxnard regarded as an australopithecine.

Elsewhere, Oxnard (1984, p. 1) gave this succinct statement of his principal conviction: “the conventional notion of human evolution must now be heavily modified or even rejected . . . new concepts must be explored.”

11.9 Lucy in the Sand with Diatribes

Donald Johanson studied anthropology at the University of Chicago, under F. Clark Howell. As a young graduate student, eager to learn the romantic business of hominid fossil hunting, Johanson accompanied Howell to Africa, working at the Omo site in Ethiopia.

After two seasons work at Omo, Johanson found himself in Paris. There he met Maurice Taieb, a French geologist, who told him about Hadar, a promising Plio-Pleistocene site in the Afar desert, in northeastern Ethiopia. In 1972, Johanson surveyed the region with Taieb, and after returning to the United States received a National Science Foundation grant to explore it more thoroughly. Johanson hoped to find hominid fossils.

In 1973, Johanson returned to Africa, but before going to Hadar he attended a conference of paleoanthropologists in Nairobi. There he met Richard Leakey, who had captured everyone’s attention with skull ER 1470 (Section 11.6.1), said to be 2.9 million years old. Leakey, by then quite famous, asked Johanson, still an unknown, what he was up to. Johanson replied that he would soon be hunting for hominids at Hadar in northern Ethiopia. “Do you really expect to find hominids there?” asked Leakey. Johanson replied yes, adding “older than yours.” He bet Leakey a bottle of wine he would do it. “Done!” said Leakey (Johanson and Edey 1981, pp. 134–135). Right from the start, it seems, Johanson was motivated by glamor. Finding hominids is special. It gets one headlines, interviews, and foundation grants, as well as recognition from one’s colleagues.

11.9.1 The Hadar Knee (Al 129)