Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

R. H. Tuttle posited the existence of preaustralopithecine hominids displaying a kind of arboreal bipedalism. He called them hylobatians, after the genus Hylobates, which includes the modern gibbon. Tuttle (1981, p. 90) stated: “Vertical climbing on tree trunks and vines and bipedalism on horizontal boughs were conspicuous components of their locomotor repertoire. They commonly stood bipedally while foraging in trees . . . Short bursts of bipedal running and hindlimbpropelled leaps may have been important for the manual capture of insects and small vertebrates with which they supplemented their vegetable fare.”

According to Tuttle (1981, p. 89), the Hadar hominids “had curved fingers and toes, strong great toes and thumbs, and other features that suggest they were rather recently derived from arboreal hominids [his hylobatians] and that they probably continued to enter trees, perhaps for night rest and some foraging.”

Studies of primate behavior apparently support the arboreal implications of the fossil morphology of A. afarensis. Susman stated: “We feel, based on extensive literature on free-ranging primates, that creatures such as represented by A.L. 288-1 could not have survived full-time on the ground. Today, all primates from common chimpanzees (which range from 27 up to 70 kg [59 to 154 lb.]), to vervet monkeys and baboons (which range from less than 3 to over 40 kg [7 to over 88 lb.]), are obliged at least to sleep in trees (or on rocky cliff-faces). They all feed in trees” (Susman et al. 1984, pp. 150–151). Susman pointed out that pollen studies showed the presence of trees at the Hadar site (Susman et al. 1984, p. 151).

Having completed our review of the anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis, we conclude that Johanson was incorrect in stating that Lucy and her relatives were predominantly terrestrial bipeds and had “essentially human bodies” (Johanson and Edey 1981, p. 275). The picture that emerges is one of an arboreally adapted creature with long, curved toes and fingers, a long, heavily muscled arm equipped with an upward-pointing shoulder joint, a pelvis structured like that of apes, and a knee complex resembling that of the orangutan.

This view is not, however, very well represented in popular presentations. In order to maintain a believable human evolutionary sequence, the scientific community apparently requires, for propaganda purposes, a credible human ancestor in the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene. The erect, bipedal, nonarboreal hominid, with apelike head and humanlike body, as portrayed by Johanson and his disciples, satisfies this requirement far better than the almost totally apelike and wholly or partially arboreal creature that emerges from the studies of Stern, Susman, Oxnard, and others. This judgement is supported by the fact that the views of Johanson, Latimer, and Lovejoy make their way into college textbooks, popular books on evolution, televisions specials, and so on, with hardly a hint of any serious opposing conception. This, we believe, is not an accident. The informal gatekeepers and guardians of scientific orthodoxy are apparently quite careful about what reaches the public.

11.9.8 Opposition to the Single Species Hypothesis

The idea that the large and small hominid individuals from Hadar and Laetoli represent a single sexually dimorphic species (Australopithecus afarensis) has not won universal acceptance among scientists.

Adrienne Zihlman (1985, p. 214) of the University of California (Santa Cruz) stated: “The interpretation of extreme sexual dimorphism for these fossils has been a mere assertion from the beginning . . . and has continued to be so.”

In one of her reports, Zihlman (1985, pp. 216–217) supplied some data on sexual dimorphism in human beings, various apes, and A. afarensis. She found: “The Hadar fossils suggest even greater dimorphism than exists in orangutans, a species where males may be more than three times the body weight of females. This means that ‘A. afarensis’ is more sexually dimorphic than any living hominoid. From the point of view of size, more than one species is strongly implied.”

In the human species, males average only about 20 percent heavier than females. So even if, for the sake of argument, one accepts that A. afarensis, with males more than three times heavier than females, did represent one species, the extreme degree of dimorphism argues strongly in support of apelike rather than humanlike morphology and behavior. And if Zihlman is right, and there were two species, not one, at Hadar, then Tim White sold Donald Johanson an illusion.