Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [492]
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:
“Pending further evidence we are left with the vision of intermediately sized animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics and perhaps of arm suspension” (Oxnard 1975a, p. 89). See our Figure 11.11, p. 714.
Figure 11.11. Most scientists describe Australopithecus as an exclusively terrestrial biped, humanlike from the head down. But according to some studies by S. Zuckerman and C. E. Oxnard, Australopithecus was more apelike. Although capable of walking on the ground bipedally (left), Australopithecus was also “at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics [right] and perhaps of arm suspension” (Oxnard 1975a, p. 89). The unique functional morphology of Australopithecus led Zuckerman and Oxnard to doubt it is a human ancestor. Illustrations by Miles Tripplett.
11.8 .2 The Pelvis of Australopithecus
Of particular interest is the Australopithecus pelvis. Scientists who believe humans evolved from australopithecines often assert that the Australopithecus pelvis is similar to that of modern Homo sapiens. In both humans and australopithecines, the ilium, the broad upper part of the pelvis, is of roughly the same shape. The ilium of the chimp is more narrow (Figure 11.12). Some researchers have taken the visual resemblance between the human ilium and that of Australopithecus