Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

According to Johanson and White, Australopithecus afarensis gave rise to two lineages. The first led by way of Australopithecus africanus to the robust australopithecines. The second lineage led by way of Homo habilis to Homo erectus and thence to Homo sapiens. In constructing this phylogenetic hypothesis, Johanson relied primarily upon dental evidence. The molars of A. afarensis were the smallest of all the australopithecines. The molars of A. africanus were larger, and those of the robust australopithecines larger still. This, to Johanson, indicated an evolutionary development. In Lucy’s Homo offspring, the molars grew progressively smaller, representing a separate, parallel line of evolutionary development. It all seemed to fit together quite nicely.

11.9.7 A. Afarensis: Overly Humanized?

Johanson said that Australopithecus afarensis individuals had “smallish, essentially human bodies” (Johanson and Edey 1981, p. 275). But several scientists have strongly disagreed with Johanson’s picture of Australopithecus afarensis. These dissenters have painted a far more apelike portrait of Lucy and her relatives. In most cases, their views on Lucy parallel the earlier work of Oxnard, Zuckerman, and others on Australopithecus. If the dissenting view is correct, as it appears to be, then Johanson’s description of Australopithecus afarensis can only be considered as misleading.

It seems that Johanson imposed a humanlike interpretation upon Lucy’s essentially apelike anatomy for the propaganda purpose of enhancing her evolutionary status as a human ancestor. Johanson himself said: “There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it. . . . In everybody who is looking for hominids there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age” (Johanson and Edey 1981, p. 257). Johanson gave this confession to explain why he originally characterized the First Family fossils and the Alemayehu jaws as Homo, but it also applies to his insistence on seeing in Lucy traits of a creature well on the way to becoming human.

The Hadar fossils did not include a complete skull of an A. afarensis individual, but Tim White managed to pull together a partial reconstruction, using cranial fragments, pieces of upper and lower jaw, and some facial bones from several First Family individuals. According to Johanson, the reconstructed skull “looked very much like a small female gorilla” (Johanson and Edey 1981, p. 351). The forehead was low, the large jaw projected far beyond the upper part of the face, and there was no chin. The general apelike appearance was also reflected in anatomical details such as the mandibular fossa (the place where the lower jaw attaches to the skull), the tympanic plate, and the mastoid process. All of these were apelike, not humanlike (Johanson and Edey 1981, pp. 272–273). Furthermore, the cranial capacity of A. afarensis (380– 450 cc) overlapped that of chimpanzees (330–400 cc) and other apes. Here there was no dispute between Johanson and his critics. Both agreed that the afarensis head was apelike.

Johanson and White believed the skull was, however, different from that of previously known australopithecines. But W. W. Ferguson (1984) and P. Schmid (1983) pointed out that White’s reconstruction of the Australopithecus afarensis skull was incorrect. Correcting the mistake “makes the resulting construction a great deal more like A. africanus,” said Groves (1989, p. 263). P. V. Tobias (1980) said all the Hadar and Laetoli fossils were not a new species but were just subspecies of Australopithecus africanus. According to Tobias, Australopithecus africanus was the ancestor of Homo, while for Johanson and White Australopithecus africanus was the ancestor of only the robust australopithecines.

Originally, Johanson thought the A. afarensis U-shaped jaws were humanlike and like the Leakeys assigned them to the genus Homo. Later Johanson said they were “distinct from apes and from any of the later hominids” (Johanson and Edey 1981, p. 271). But his detailed descriptions showed the Hadar jaws to be in fact quite apelike.