LUCY: APE OR HOMINID?

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

THE EXPEDITIONS 1

THE INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS 4

THE CONTROVERSIAL DEBATE 5

CONCLUSION 6

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7

INTRODUCTION

Johanson and his research team discovered “Lucy”—a fossilized skeleton in the Dafar region of Ethiopia in 1974. New questions surfaced. Was Johanson the discoverer of the most profound evidence to affect the present-day theory of evolution? Alternatively, a fraud? Was Lucy the missing link? Many questions remain in the minds of many. Theory and evidence are affluently offered, in both the support and dissention of Johanson’s published interpretive analysis. The specimens attributed to the Lucy species have been exhaustively scrutinized—the differing views are seemingly endless. Some opine that subsequent discoveries negate Johanson’s bipedal hominid claim and others enthusiastically embrace Lucy. Presently, conclusive proof is virtually non-existent. Ongoing field discoveries perpetuate the acrimonious debate. The intact specimen “Selam” credited to Alemseged may provide opportunity for an even greater insight into the debacle. Does the latest evidence support Lucy was a knuckle-dragging gorilla, tree-dwelling ape, or a bipedal hominid? Are Johanson’s conclusions based upon objective, logical inferences or motive-filled speculative conjecture?

THE EXPEDITIONS

Donald Johanson, a young paleoanthropologist, applied to the National Science Foundation for a two-year monetary grant funding a research expedition to Ethiopia. Johanson had not promised hominids in his grant proposal; but it included a ‘strong pitch for hominids.”

The NSF awarded $43,000 for the expedition. In the fall of 1973, Johanson and his team set out for Ethiopia in search of bones. He found bones, many irrelevant animal bones. Eventually, he found hominid bones. In latter visits, he found abundant clusters of hominid bones.

The most notable was Lucy a partially complete skeleton of a suspected hominid—estimated to be at least 3 million years old. The discovery of these pre-historic bones led to revolutionary findings, which were both acclaimed and criticized. The resulting impact and implications rippled through the scientific community.

Johanson presented his knee-joint in early 1974 to a group of anthropologists, where he represented it as apparently bipedal and alluded to a hominid origin. This was met with immediate scrutiny relayed directly by Mary Leakey—A renowned paleoanthropologist. Subsequently, while delivering a lecture, the almost broke Johanson tried his hand at fundraising. His initial attempt was met with great success and he received an additional $25,000 to continue his expedition that had already been funded by the NSF. The timing of the knee-joint find could not come at a better time for the almost-broke Johanson. Obviously realizing the value of hominid bones, Johanson stated, “I never promised, hominid bones- but without a strong case for them there would be no money.” The ability to produce money through grants, endowments, and appearances obviously became immediately apparent.

While in Dafar during the 1974 season, Johanson was again broke, this time the Leakey foundation sent him $10,000 he needed to finish the season. After weeks of fruitless searching, the team finally discovered a hominid jaw. In the following days, with rapid succession a few more jawbones were found. They were believed to be Australopithecine.

Suddenly “’Lucy’–the oldest, most complete, best-preserved skeleton of any erect-walking [hominid] ever was discovered” The remains were named for the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which played repeatedly, while the collected bones were assembled. Johanson had struck proverbial gold as he had a partially complete skeleton of an early hominid. The implication of the assembled remains was profound: A bipedal hominid, dating back 3 million years, with a small brain. This was contrary to common theory of the sequence of evolution. Lucy would eventually turn the evolutionary theory upside down. Everything that was previously known by experts would change.

Johanson was met with instantaneous fame in the airport, while he was traveling with the remains from Ethiopia to the United States. In the midst of excitement, Johanson was under scrutiny. A debate in the scientific community ensued on the techniques used by Johanson to derive the fossil’s age, together with his other conclusions, details, and inconsistencies; which were immediately apparent to his peers. Initially Johanson published the discovery of two kinds of hominids. One for the jawbones discovered during the same season and a second for Lucy. Johanson had found a home for his $25,000 knee-joint! He asserted, the anatomical similarity with his knee-joint and Lucy were obvious, and they must be the same species. If he could get $25,000 for a knee-joint, what could a partially complete skeleton produce in grants, endowments, or endorsements?

The interest was piqued, not only in Lucy, but also in Johanson himself. National Geographic Magazine was eager to solicit Johanson for interviews and articles. The newfound fame did not stop with media hype. He was appointed Curator of Physical Anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Johanson’s previous financial plight apparently instantaneously dissipated. An influx of endowments, grants, and other royalties, would obviously need to reciprocate the benefit of a tax-deductible charitable donation. This is the probable causation of Johanson founding the non-profit “Institute of Human Origins.” The Internal Revenue Service’s definition of non-profit does not preclude a lucrative salary to Johanson.

Lucy contributed to Johanson’s ability to fund the 1975 return to Dafar. The location AL 333 yielded a substantial breakthrough. “The First Family,” as Johanson detailed, “over 350 separate fossil pieces, making up a group of males, females, and juveniles.” There were plenty of fossils to impress anybody, so there was no need for a great discovery. The initial inferences were limited. Johanson attributed the abundance of fossils in small area to a sudden and common cause of death. The fragments were small, repetitive, and severely corroded. The sensation continued and so did the celebrity status of Johanson. Johanson began writing and speaking. Scientific journals, speaking engagements and university tours became the norm.

THE INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS

The most significant impact to the field of paleoanthropology is likely a result of the article published in a 1979 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Science titled A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids. The inability to substantiate his speculation, without doubt, only lent itself to increase the controversy among peers.

The interpretive assessment combined the Hadar, Ethiopian remains with those recovered by Mary Leakey in Laetolil, Tanzania. Johanson assigned the collective finds a new taxonomy, Austrolopithiecus Afarensis. The fossils were estimated to be 2.6 to 3.3 million years old based upon geochronologic and biostratigraphic evidence. Distinctive characteristics of the cranium, dentition, mandible, and postcranium were detailed. Notably Johanson inferred the postcranial skeleton “analyses so far indicate that the hominids were adapted to bipedal locomotion. This is especially evident from the analysis of the knee-joint anatomy.” Interestingly enough, the knee-joint so significantly weighted is the same knee-joint was found a significant distance from “Lucy.” The reference is grossly misleading, as without careful attention to the footnotes and cross-reference to the article, it is easily assumed that the knee-joint belongs to Lucy.

Drastic differences in specimen sizes were attributed to the highly debated sexual dimorphism of A. Afarensis. The humerus and femur measurements provided the basis for a humerofemoral index that was declared a “high relative to modern humans.” The interpretation proffered was a “single hominid lineage.” Specific dissention was placed on the consideration of two distinct hominid species present. This is when, Johanson blatantly refuted Richard Leakey’s work on the same subject, probably sparking the disparaging relationship that ensued. The phylogenetic relationship interpretations implicated the newly named species as an ancestor to all other known hominids. This is a brazen contention for any paleoanthropologist that contradicts the work of colleagues.

An observed lack of morphological difference between fossils by an estimated 1/2 million years “suggested relative stasis in the earliest documented portions of hominid evolution” and an upset in this stasis. Simply put, a surge and ebb, in the evolution of hominids. Johanson recognized “the implications of the new material for understanding the mode and tempo of hominid evolution.” They conclude that the “phylogenetic framework… will allow anatomical, biomechanical, and behavioral studies of fossil humans to proceed constructively.”

Collectively these assertions and conclusions are laden with speculation unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. The published article plunged a debate into the scientific community that ripples to the present day.

THE CONTROVERSIAL DEBATE

Richard Leakey, of the infamous Leakey family, has been outspoken in his disagreement with Johanson’s conclusions. He specifically concludes that Johanson’s theories are wrong in two aspects. First is the belief the difference in size and anatomical shape of the bones were a result of a single sexually dimorphic species. Rather he concludes it is more probable that they are a mixture of two or more species. Second is the placement of A. Afarensis in the evolutionary scheme as the ancestor to all other known hominids and humans. Leakey considers humans to have originated from seven to five million years ago and that “it would be highly unusual for a single species at 3 million years ago to be the ancestor of all later species.” Leakey wasn’t alone in his dissention. He relied upon the “Stern and Susman” interpretation of Lucy’s anatomy concluding, “[Lucy] retained structural features that enabled it to use the trees efficiently for feeding, sleeping, or escape.” He concurred, “I see no problem with imagining that an ancestor of ours exhibited apelike behavior and that trees were important in their lives.”

Charles Oxnard utilized computer modeling to calculate walking and gait. He discounted the ancestral claim of Lucy because the features as a whole are not an intermediary between man and ape. He concluded, “They may have been bipedal in a way that is no longer seen, but have retained abilities for climbing, and perhaps minor arboreal acrobatics such as might be found in an intermediately sized ape-like creature.”

A recent find, “Selam” by Alemseged provides greater detail of the A. Afarensis species. The highly preserved and intact skeleton shows us a more complete shoulder blade, intact curved fingers, complete hyoid bone, and a mostly complete cranium. Many details of this specimen fill in some of the gaps that Lucy left. The remains are still being evaluated.

The Selam shoulder blade is very gorilla-like which is more consistent with knuckle walking, not bipedalism. An intact and much curved finger bone which is more consistent arboreal tree climbing. The hyoid bone was very consistent with a chimpanzee. These observations led Wood to “suggest that the locomotion of A. Afarensis was unlikely to have been restricted to walking on two feet”. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Lucy was a significant find but the conclusion that she was exclusively a biped seems to be premature. A hominid is by definition a biped. If Lucy is not a biped—she is not a hominid. The case for knuckle dragger or tree dweller seems more probable. This obviously brings into question the conclusion of A. Afarensis being an evolutionary predecessor to humankind.

Johanson went from struggling and broke to author, speaker, and television. He had monetary interest in Lucy being a biped hominid. Johanson says it best “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. If he is interested in hippo teeth, that is what he is going to find.” “[I was] also biased. I was trying to jam the evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.”

Johanson motivated by money, went searching for hominid bones and found an ape.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alemseged, Zeresenay [pseud.]. “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia.” Nature 443 (21 September 2006|), 296-301.

Johanson, D. C., and T. D. White. “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids.” Science 203 (January 1979), 321-29.

Johanson, Donald C., and and A. Edey Maitl. Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind. Warner Books ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981.

Johanson, Donald, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar. Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins. New York: Villard Books, 1994.

Leakey, Richard. The Origin of Humankind. New York: BasicBooks, 1994.

Oxnard, Charles. “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?”.” Nature, 1975, 389-95.

Wood, Bernard. “Palaeoanthropology: A Precious Little Bundle.” Nature 443, no. 7109 (9/21/2006,), 278-81.”

. Donald C. Johanson, and A. Edey Maitl, Lucy, the beginnings of Humankind, Warner Books ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 134.

. Ibid., 154.

. Ibid., 134.

. Ibid., 164.

. Ibid., 165.

. Ibid., 155.

. Ibid., 154.

. Ibid., 172-74.

. Ibid. , 176

. Donald Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, Ancestors: In search of human Origins (New York: Villard Books, 1994), 60.

. Johanson and Maitl, Lucy, the beginnings of Humankind, 180.

. Ibid., 180-81.

. Ibid., 180.

. Ibid., 185.

Ibid., 208.

. Ibid., 208.

Ibid., 236.

. Ibid., 214.

. Ibid., 294.

. D. C. Johanson, and T. D. White, “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science 203 (January 1979), 321.

Ibid., 324.

Ibid., 324.

Ibid., 325.

Ibid., 329.

Ibid., 329.

. Richard Leakey, The Origin of Humankind (New York: BasicBooks, 1994), 34.

. Ibid., 36.

Ibid., 36.

. Charles Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?”,” Nature 258, 1975, 394.

. Zeresenay Alemseged [pseud.], “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia,” Nature 443 (21 September 2006|), 296.

. Bernard Wood, “Palaeoanthropology: A Precious Little Bundle.,” Nature 443, no. 7109 (9/21/2006,).

. Johanson and Maitl, Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind, 18.

. Ibid., 257.

. Ibid., 259