Have any anthropologists considered the possibility that the footprints at Laetoli could be from ancient Homo?

Question

I ask this due to the fact that many scientists consider that Australopithecus Afarensis and the like to have more apelike feet (as well as other features). As a believer in punctuational evolution, I wonder that if a major speciation event took place 15 million years ago when the African/Arabia continental plate slammed into the Eurasia plate. This may have lead quite quiclky to evolutionary lines of ancestral man and his relatives. By the time of the Laetoli footprints, archaic man may have been evolved enough to leave those footprints that are remarkably similar to modern human footprints. I do not believe Australopithecus Afarensis could have made them with their more curved and apelike feet. Even waling on their knuckles wouldn't explain such modern looking footprints. I'm starting to really believe in the great antiquity of man now. After reading Cremo's book- "Forbidden Archaeology" recently as well, I have to say that I think we are definitely in dire need of a new paradigm!

Answer 1

The Laetoli footprints are widely considered to belong to the genus Australopithecus.  They date from about 3-4 million years ago, which is far earlier than any Homo remains have been found.

Further, we do have a few fossilized foot bones from Australopithecus; they are not inconsistent with the Laetoli prints.

Even the anthropologists who suggest a partially-arboreal lifestyle for Australopithecines recognize that they were capable of fully-bipedal locomotion.  The argument here is over a slight curvature of the metacarpals/metatarsals; not an "apelike" footprint.

Answer 2

Australopithecus afarensis, commonly known as "Lucy" is one of the most important hominid fossils. This fossil kind, has long arms, and small brain capacity like modern apes. But the most significant feature of them was their bipedal movement style. There are more than 300 individuals of this kind dated between 4 and 3 million years ago. They all have the same characteristic pelvis bone that proves bipedal walking. Also their footprints proved that they walked as modern homos.

We are talking about 4 million years! So let's forget the modern man! Modern man just appeared 130-140 thousand years ago. There is no relation with the Leatoli footprints and modern homos.

Naming of fossils are very problematic. Because, Australopithecus took its name when it was first found. That means "monkey of the south". But the researchers did not know that this kind had the ability to walk on their two leg when they gave this name to them. If they recognized that feature, they would give "Homo erectus" to Afarensis, I believe. Because the Homo erectus has its name because of its recognized bipedal walking ability.



So what's the difference for you? If the scientist called the Afarensis, "Homo", would your problem be solved? As far as I know, A. afarensis is one of our ancestors, I don't care what we call them. It's more important to understand them.

Answer 3

I like your thinking about these footprints. I did my B.A. in Anthropology over 35 years ago, at a time when a moratorium was imposed on the giving of any more Anthro. Degrees in N.Y. State~! I did my Master's degree almost concurrently in Mexico City, and have specialized in Paleoanthropology ever since. Much of our work is well documented in "Forbidden Archaeology"~! I have to tell you that I have personally seen fossilized gigantic Human footprints over 30 inches long, and even some not so huge fossilized human footprints in the state of Maine. What is so significant about these "aberrant" finds is that they aren't all that uncommon, merely supressed in the literature, at least the acceptable literature of the field. Additionally, if you care for a really mind boggling fact, consider this: Gigantic, very human remains have commonly been found in the central U.S. in and among the mounds~! These old folks were VERY ancient, and not even in some remote country setting in Ethiopia or the Mid East and Sub Saharan Africa. After being involved in this area of science for so many years, I have to tell you that we now "know" far less than we used to think we knew about our remote ancestors. It is an extraordinarily humbling experience to actually find with your own two hands things which simply cannot exist according to scientific dogma, and yet, it happens constantly in the field settings in which we find ourselves. Keep thinking along the lines you do, and please add the work of Dr. J.J. Hurtak to your source material. His website is www.affs.org. I have personally spent many hours boggling over the things he has not only seen and discovered and photographed,but over the things he has been shown by native  people who guard such recondite material from being destroyed out in the actual settings where this evidence exists in abundance.....