Lake Turkana specimens

As a fossil hunter, Richard E.F. Leakey can be compared to a gold prospector with little education, yet he was able to make a fortune. Richard Leakey is the son of the famous Louis and Mary Leakey, both of whom earned doctoral degrees. Richard Leakey never attended college. However, as a fossil hunter, he had several advantages. The years of experience he gained with his parents and his entire life spent in Kenya had practical benefits. Leakey’s name and his position as director of the Kenya National Museum helped secure the funds, equipment, and favorable opportunities necessary for fossil hunting. Additionally, there was his inherited intelligence and Leakey’s ambition.

Leakey’s first fossil-hunting excursion in Kenya took place in 1968, when, with a gift from the National Geographic Society, he led a team to explore the area east of Lake Turkana (then called Lake Rudolph), known as Koobi Fora, located south of the Ethiopian border. This area turned out to be rich in fossils. During the first expedition, three “hominid” jaws were discovered, and in 1969, Leakey found an excellent specimen of the skull of Australopithecus bosei, similar to the one his mother had found in Olduvai, Tanzania, ten years earlier. In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, one of the Kenyans on Leakey’s team, made a discovery that would make Richard Leakey famous.

This was the discovery of the famous skull, KNM-ER 1470, better known as Skull 1470. The official designation is under the number 1470, Kenya National Museum, East Rudolph collection. Descriptions of this material were published by Leakey in the British journal Nature60,61 and in National Geographic62, and descriptions can also be found in books authored by Leakey.63,64 Descriptions of previously found material in the East Turkana area are discussed in Leakey’s 1973 publication,61 and the material found in this area in 1973 was described by Leakey in 1974.65 A good overview of the East Turkana specimens was published in 1978 by Alan Walker and Leakey.66 It was interesting to note that in the journals reporting the discovery of “Skull 1470” and several toe bones, Leakey congratulated Ngeneo and paleontologist John Harris for their discoveries, thanked anatomist Bernard Wood for spending many hours at the site searching for fragments, and thanked Wood, anthropologist Alan Walker, and his wife Meave for reconstructing the material. Additionally, Leakey must have heavily relied on others for anatomical analyses, as he himself did not have formal training in anatomy or anthropology. Nevertheless, Leakey’s name appeared in the newspapers as if he were the sole author.

We can recall that Johanson, at a press conference in October 1974, claimed, regarding the discovery of several jaws, that considering these findings, “All previous theories about the origin of man leading to modern humans must be totally revised.”42 In Leakey’s article in National Geographic, he said: “Either we discard this skull or we discard our theories about early humans… It simply doesn’t fit into earlier models of human beginnings.”62 Lord Zuckerman spent fifteen years with a team of scientists, rarely fewer than four, studying australopithecine fossils using the best available anatomical methods, before they published whether these creatures were hominids or not. Johanson and Richard Leakey were willing not only to state on-site that their findings were hominids, but both were bold enough, with little time for study and independent assessments, to declare how their discoveries had rendered all previous theories about human origins obsolete. With the collaboration of today’s mass media, young anthropologists have found a quick path to fame—call a press conference, show the fossils, and make bold and imaginative claims. Fifteen years of detailed anatomical studies in the lab are considered simply unnecessary and tedious work.

In his National Geographic article,62 Leakey (p. 820) describes “Skull 1470” as “surprisingly advanced early human.” At press conferences and public lectures, Leakey emphasized that his “Skull 1470” had many advanced human-like features in some respects, such as the absence of large brow ridges, the possession of a high-domed vault, and the lack of any indication of a occipital ridge, even much more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Yet, he stated that this creature was nearly three million years old. The postcranial remains found in the Koobi Fora Formation, which Leakey believed provided evidence of constant bipedal movement, were found at too great a distance from “Skull 1470” to clearly link these postcranial remains with the owner of the skull, according to Leakey. The estimated cranial capacity of 800 cm3 (other estimates were somewhat lower), and the morphology of the calvaria (skull cap), Leakey believed, warranted the inclusion of this creature in the Homo genus, but he saw no convincing reason to assign it to Homo habilis. He thus labeled it as Homo sp. indet. (indeterminate species, specimen that may be identified to the species level).61

A thorough assessment of the Lake Turkana specimens can be found in the work published by Walker and Leakey.66 In this publication (published five years after the one we discussed above), and in the book published in 1981,67 Leakey states that his “Skull 1470” should be assigned to Homo habilis, although the coauthor of this work, Alan Walker, now an anthropologist at Johns Hopkins University, believes it should be placed in the genus Australopithecus.

In attributing his 1470 specimen to Homo habilis, Leakey significantly deviated from his earlier statements, and Walker’s suggestion that it should be placed among the australopithecines significantly lowers its status. As mentioned earlier, Leakey stated in a National Geographic article in 1973 that “either we discard our skull or we discard our theories about early humans.” At a lecture in San Diego, shortly after that, the author heard Leakey state that the discovery of “Skull 1470” made all current theories about human origins invalid, but he had nothing to replace them with. However, if “Skull 1470” can be attributed to Homo habilis, not all theories about human origins current at the time would have been invalid.

Louis Leakey, in 1964,68 stated that Homo habilis was a valid species, and the elder Leakey included Homo habilis in the suggested lineage for the origin of man. According to Louis Leakey, among the known fossils, Homo habilis stands alone in the line leading to modern humans. From his viewpoint, the australopithecines, A. africanus and A. bosei (robustus), were impossible side branches in the direct line of modern humans.

Specimens that Louis Leakey called Homo habilis were discovered by his team at Olduvai Gorge shortly after his discovery of Zinjanthropus (A. bosei).69,70 Leakey believed these specimens were large enough to be placed in the genus Homo. This created significant controversy, with some supporting Leakey, while others insisted that Homo habilis, although its cranial capacity (about 650 cm3) was larger than that of smaller australopithecine varieties, was an inadequate taxon, and that these fossils should remain in the genus Australopithecus.

In previous sections, we discussed some conclusions of Charles Oxnard and Lord Zuckerman regarding alleged bipedal movement and the intermediate status of the australopithecines. More recently, Oxnard published studies of fossil foot bones labeled OH 8, which were discovered by Louis Leakey. Early studies by Leakey, Day, and Napier,71 and more recent studies by Susman and Stern, led researchers to claim that these last foot bones belonged to a fully bipedal creature, although Susman and Stern believed they came from a hominid that still retained “a generalized hominid capacity for climbing trees.” All these researchers attributed the fossil foot bones to Homo habilis.

According to analyses by Oxnard and his colleague F. Peter Lisowski, their reconstruction and re-articulation of these foot bones (OH 8) produced a structure that:

“…displays characteristics that more closely link it with the feet of various apes. Parts of the casts of the re-articulated Olduvai foot (both from the Wenner Gren Foundation and the Kenya National Museum) show that the hominid appearance of the original reconstructed joint was caused by a series of incorrect osteological centerings.”

They later state:

“It is therefore clear that: a) The Olduvai foot is not adapted for bipedal movement in the way of humans, and b) it exhibits features characteristic of the feet of arboreal creatures. Such anatomical features, associated with bipedal movement in fossils, suggest usage by an arboreal species that walks upright with flat feet (such as chimpanzees or gorillas), rather than with the raised feet of humans.”73

Additional material supporting this view can be found in Oxnard’s publication from 1981.74

So, it seems that, at best, there is doubt that these creatures, which some call Homo habilis, walked permanently upright or possessed other characteristics that would warrant their placement in the genus Homo. If observed today, they would easily be recognized as ape-like humans. They would not necessarily be called “orangutans,” “gorillas,” “chimpanzees,” or any other name of an ape, as they are unique, but despite this, they would presently be placed in the family of great apes.

Thus, if “Skull 1470” is not unique, as originally suggested by Richard it should actually be placed, along with the other creature named Homo habilis, in the genus Australopithecus, and if the analysis of these creatures carried out by Oxnard and his collaborators is correct (it must be added to the consideration of Oxnard’s assessment of Homo habilis that we recognize that his analyses were limited to Homo habilis samples from Olduvai, as he had not yet examined the Lake Turkana fossils), then the creature represented by “Skull 1470” does not necessarily have to be humanoid. Following Leakey’s sensational and extravagant claims, which were made in public lectures and found their way to the pages of National Geographic, other popular publications, and mass media, many, including the author, were convinced that Leakey had found fossilized remains of a creature that could be said to represent a variety of modern humans. Now we can see that the best advice is always extreme caution. It may take many years before this material becomes available and before enough careful and objective analyses are conducted to place this matter in the proper perspective. As we will see later, it took 50 years to discover that this was a fraud, and almost 100 years for the status of Neanderthal man to rise from a crude subhuman ancestor to full Homo sapiens status.

A comparison was made of various australopithecines and several specimens attributed to Homo habilis. For comparative purposes, several specimens attributed to Homo erectus were also included. Homo erectus will be discussed in more detail later. The dates shown are those found in the literature. The fragile species, africanus, is assumed to range in age from almost 4 million years to just one million years, with no change in cranial capacity, which is on average about 400 cm3 or slightly larger. Earlier researchers place afarensis into africanus. More robust than australopithecus, robustus (boisei is generally included in robustus) differed from africanus by its typical pongid sagittal crest and stronger appearance, and is generally attributed to dates which, although widely overlapping with those of africanus, are significantly younger than those given to the earliest specimens of africanus. The robustus form, estimated to be significantly larger than the africanus form, had an average cranial capacity somewhat larger than 500 cm3.

It can be seen from this comparison that the specimens of Homo habilis overlap with australopithecines both in cranial capacity and in the ages attributed to these creatures. It is also evident that some specimens of Homo erectus are attributed ages equal to, or greater than, those attributed to individuals of the africanus, robustus, and habilis species, although Homo erectus is considered to be the descendant of one of these creatures. What we see here are creatures of significant morphological diversity and variability, which display considerable stability or stagnation. Richard Leakey, while noting that the samples attributed to Homo found at East Turkana (then East Rudolph) show greater variability than australopithecines, observes:

“East Rudolph samples attributed to australopithecus encompass a time span from three million years to just over one million years, with evidently little morphological change.”75

Regarding Homo erectus, Walker and Leakey state:

“The similarity of these two East Turkana specimens in that they are far from being much younger strongly suggests that Homo erectus was a morphologically stable species of human for a range of at least about one million years.”76

Thus, we see that individuals of Australopithecus africanus are easily recognized as Australopithecus africanus, although they were found in locations in Southern and Eastern Africa, thousands of miles apart, and are assumed to differ in age from one to three million years. The same applies to the robustus form, individuals attributed to Homo habilis, and largely to creatures designated as Homo erectus. Furthermore, the fact that all these creatures existed simultaneously strongly argues against what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.

A correspondent from the journal Nature observes:

“Such sympatry of Homo with one, and quite possibly two forms of australopithecines, would mean that there is little information about direct and immediate ancestors of Homo. These known australopithecines, contemporaneous with Homo, obviously cannot fulfill the ancestral role.”77

Although there is certainly no doubt about the fact of evolution, paleontologist Stephen J. Gould from Harvard University has the following to say about this situation:

“What emerges from our ladder, if there are three existing lines of hominids (A. africanus, robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none of which is clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of these three shows any evolutionary trends during their existence on Earth: none gained a larger brain, nor became more upright as they approach the present day.”78

Gould believes that the old idea of linear evolution, with various fossil creatures representing rungs in the ladder leading to man, is incorrect, and that the true picture is more like a bush with many parallel branches. But this leaves unanswered the question of what led to that bush? How and why does evolution occur in bursts?

This contemporaneity of creatures classified as Homo with australopithecines has been known for some time. Louis Leakey reported two decades ago on the contemporaneous existence of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, whose fossils he found in Layer II of Olduvai Gorge.79,80 An extremely surprising, and also a fact that was very difficult for evolutionists to accept, is Louis Leakey’s statement that he found the remains of a stone hut with a circular shape at the bottom of Layer II.80,81 The thoughtful construction of such shelters had long been attributed only to Homo sapiens, and can still be observed today in Africa.

If Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus existed simultaneously, how could one have been the ancestor of the other? And how could any of these creatures be an ancestor of man, when human remains have been found at a lower stratigraphic level, directly below, and thus are earlier in time than the assumed ancestors of man? If these facts reported by Leakey are true, then clearly none of these creatures could be an ancestor of man, and this leaves man’s ancestral tree completely bare.

• Literature
• C. E. Oxnard, Homo 30:243 (1981).
• C. E. Oxnard and F. P. Lisowski, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 52:116 (1980).
• R. E. F. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1981.
• R. E. F. Leakey, Nature 242:170 (1973).
• R. E. F. Leakey, Nature 242:447 (1973).
• R. E. F. Leakey, National Geographic Jun 1973, p. 819.
• R. E. F. Leakey and R. Lewin, Origins, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1977.
• Leakey, Ref. 50.
• R. E. F. Leakey, Nature 248:653 (1974).
• A. Walker and R. E. F. Leakey, Sci. Amer. 239(2):54 (1978).
• Leakey, Ref. 50, p. 17.
• L. S. B. Leakey, P. V. Tobias, J. R. Napier, Nature 202:7 (1964).
• L. S. B. Leakey, Nature 188:1050 (1960).
• L. S. B. Leakey, Nature 189:649 (1961).
• M. H. Day and J. R. Napier, Nature 201:967 (1964).
• R. L. Susman and J. T. Stern, Jr., Science 217:931 (1982).
• Oxnard, Ref. 33, p. 107.
• Oxnard, Ref. 32, pp. 225-246.
• Leakey, Ref. 65, p. 655.
• A. Walker and R. E. F. Leakey, Sci. Amer. 239(2). 65 (1978).
• Anonymous Correspondent, Nature 261:541 (1976).
• S. J. Gould, Nat. Hist. 85:30 (1976).
• M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1971, p. 272.
• A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st ed., J. B. Lippincott Co., New York 1970, p. 221.
• Leakey, Ref. 79, p. 24.