Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [493]
But the impact of this demonstration is reduced when one considers the orientation of the ilium to the rest of the pelvis in apes, humans, and australopithecines. The comparison can best be made when the hip sockets are turned toward the viewer (Figure 11.13).
As can be seen, the ape ilium is situated in a manner different from that of a human being. The ape’s iliac blade is oriented so that only the edge is visible.
In Australopithecus, the ilium is oriented like that of apes rather than humans (Oxnard 1984, p. 311). To Oxnard and Zuckerman, this suggested apelike or uniquely nonhuman elements in the musculature, posture, and locomotor pattern of Australopithecus.
The typical visual presentation of the human ilium and that of Australopithecus, showing both to be of the same shape, is therefore somewhat deceptive, in that their different orientations are usually not mentioned.
Even the claimed similarity in shape of the ilium in Australopithecus and human beings is not complete in all respects. Zuckerman (1954, p. 345) observed: “When the least breadth of the ilium is expressed as a percentage of the greatest breadth. . . . the [australopithecine] fossils are pongid [apelike].”
Figure 11.12. In Australopithecus (right) and a modern human (center), the broad iliac blade of the pelvis is of similar shape. Some have taken this as proof that australopithecines walked upright in human fashion. A chimpanzee ilium (left) is shaped differently. After Oxnard (1975a, p. 53), not to scale.
Figure 11.13. When the pelvis is viewed with the hip socket toward the observer, the ilium of Australopithecus (left) is oriented like that of the chimpanzee (right) and not like that of the human being (center). This, and other features of the australopithecine pelvis, indicated to Oxnard and Zuckerman that Australopithecus was capable of quadrupedal and tree-climbing behavior similar to that of the orangutan. After Oxnard (1975a, p. 55), not to scale.
There are other significant differences. Zuckerman (1954, pp. 344–345) said about the specimens of Australopithecus pelvis that he studied: (1) “in their maximum iliac breadth they were smaller than in man, but of the size usual in apes”; (2) “the extent of the gluteal [muscle] areas was significantly smaller than in the chimpanzee and man, but of the size found in the gorilla, and . . . in the orang”; (3) “The size of the auricular surface, the area with which the sacrum [tail bone] articulates, was significantly smaller than in man, but similar to that in apes.”
Regarding the size of the auricular surface and that of the iliac tuberosity (the large rounded prominence for the attachment of muscles and ligaments on the upper part of the ilium), Zuckerman (1954, p. 346) stated: “Schultz (1930) has shown that the great relative size of these two areas in man is related to the erect attitude, and to the transmission of the weight of the trunk, head, and upper limbs on the sacroiliac articulations. Their smaller size in the great apes can be related to the more quadrupedal posture and gait of these animals. In view of their equally small size in the fossil specimens, it is difficult not to believe that the Australopithecines walked in the same way as do apes.” Modern proponents of a more humanlike view of Australopithecus consistently and vehemently deny this possibility.
According to Zuckerman, features of the Australopithecus pelvis identified by some as decidedly human were subject to alternate interpretations. One of these humanlike features, according to Broom, Robinson, and Schepers (1950), was “the presence of a well-developed anterior inferior iliac spine.” Zuckerman (1954, pp. 343–344), however, observed: “Such a spine may imply a ligament whose development is normally associated with the maintenance of the erect posture. On the other hand the spine is also well developed in many quadrupedal animals, e.g. the menotyphlous insectivores, and many carnivores and rodents (Straus 1929).