The South African Australopiths

Ross, Marcus R. et al.  “Human History from Adam to Abraham:  Integrating Paleoanthropology with a Young-age Creation Perspective.”  Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Creationism, 66–87.  2023.  A synthesis by three young-earth scientists, a palaeontologist and two baraminologists, of which hominin fossils are human and how they fit a young-earth history.  It tabulates the placements made by the main young-earth writers since 1992.

1. 1a.

   Page 75:  “The deposition of material within a cave context must necessarily follow a sequence of events that begins with deposition of carbonate sediment and is followed by lithification, cave formation via dissolution, and exposure at the surface. Only then can occupation within the cave commence, with materials eventually placed and later preserved by cave sediments. It does not matter how long or at what time these processes took place; they must always go in the same order.”  “These general considerations strongly suggest that all hominin remains are post-Flood.” ↩ ↩

2. 1b.

   Page 73:  “Australopithecus finds such as the Kadanuumuu skeleton (Haile-Selassie et al. 2010), the Dikika juvenile (Alemseged 2006), and the Little Foot skeleton (Clarke 2019) seem to reinforce earlier judgments that these creatures were not human.” ↩

3. 1c.

   Page 74:  “Nevertheless, it seems very clear that Au. afarensis and Au. africanus are not human.” ↩ ↩ ↩

4. 1d.

   Page 72:  “With a vastly lower cranial capacity measuring roughly one-third the size of modern humans, steeply sloped braincase, heavy brow ridge and somewhat prognathous muzzle, Austalopithecus skulls are readily distinguishable from those of the Lubenow core.” ↩

5. 1e.

   Page 73, table 2:  The row "Australopithecus (other species, including 'robust australopithecines')" reads "ape" under Lubenow (1992, 2004), Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Cuozzo (1998), Rupe and Sanford (2017), Bergman, Line, Tomkins and Biddle (2020), Sinclair and Wood (2021) and the present study. ↩

Dart, Raymond A.  “Australopithecus africanus:  The Man-Ape of South Africa.”  Nature 115(2884):195–199.  Feb 7, 1925.  The paper that named Australopithecus africanus from the Taung child's skull.  Dart was a 32-year-old anatomy professor in Johannesburg.  He argued from the skull alone that the creature walked upright and was nearer to humans than any ape, but he called it a man-like ape, not a man.

1. 2a.

   Page 195:  “I learned that this valuable fossil had been blasted out of the limestone cliff formation—at a vertical depth of 50 feet and a horizontal depth of 200 feet—at Taungs, which lies 80 miles north of Kimberley on the main line to Rhodesia, in Bechuanaland, by operatives of the Northern Lime Company.” ↩

2. 2b.

   Page 197:  “This relationship may be expressed in the form of a "head-balancing" index of 60.7. The same index in a baboon provides a value of 41.3, in an adult chimpanzee 50.7, in Rhodesian man 83.7”.  “points to the assumption by this fossil group of an attitude appreciably more erect than that of modern anthropoids.” ↩

3. 2c.

   Page 198:  “it represents a fossil group distinctly advanced beyond living anthropoids in those two dominantly human characters of facial and dental recession on one hand, and improved quality of the brain on the other. Unlike Pithecanthropus, it does not represent an ape-like man, a caricature of precocious hominid failure, but a creature well advanced beyond modern anthropoids in just those characters, facial and cerebral, which are to be anticipated in an extinct link between man and his simian ancestor. At the same time, it is equally evident that a creature with anthropoid brain capacity, and lacking the distinctive, localised temporal expansions which appear to be concomitant with and necessary to articulate man, is no true man. It is therefore logically regarded as a man-like ape.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

4. 2d.

   Page 196:  “the first permanent molar tooth only has erupted in both jaws on both sides of the face, i.e. it corresponds anatomically with a human child of six years of age.” ↩ ↩

Rupe, Christopher.  “"Lucy" and the Pygmy Human Hypothesis.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 62:208–227.  2026.  A refereed paper in a creationist journal by a young-earth geologist who co-wrote Contested Bones.  It argues that Lucy was a small human and that other pelves filed under Australopithecus, including Sts 14, may be human too.

1. 3a.

   Page 220:  “Indeed, it may therefore be another example of a misclassified human pelvis (Figure 13). Supporting this interpretation, the STS 14 pelvis was found with a human-shaped vertebral column with lumbar lordosis (Broom et al., 1950; Johanson and Edgar, 1996). This specimen was classified by paleoanthropologists as Au. africanus (it was considered "too old" to qualify as Homo), a taxonomic designation that creationists have uncritically accepted.”  Earlier on the same page he says Broom compared the Sts 14 pelvis.  “to a pygmy human pelvis”. ↩ ↩

2. 3b.

   Page 223:  “This paper proposes that there are more reliable traits that can be used to distinguish human fossils from the true ape-like Australopithecus genus.” ↩

Granger, Darryl E. et al.  “New cosmogenic burial ages for Sterkfontein Member 2 Australopithecus and Member 5 Oldowan.”  Nature 522:85–88.  2015.  The burial date of the rubble around Little Foot, from the isochron method applied to several quartz and chert samples, by the laboratory at Purdue University that developed burial dating of cave sediments, with Little Foot's excavators.  It also dates the earliest stone tools at the site.

1. 4a.

   Section Abstract:  “Much of the existing chronology based on uranium–lead dating and palaeomagnetic stratigraphy has recently been called into question by the recognition that dated flowstones fill cavities formed within previously cemented breccias and therefore do not form a stratigraphic sequence.”  “it was deposited 3.67 ± 0.16 million years ago, far earlier than the 2.2 million year flowstones found within it.”  The same abstract dates the earliest stone tools, in Member 5, to 2.18 ± 0.21 million years. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

Walker, Joanne et al.  “U-Pb isotopic age of the StW 573 hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa.”  Science 314(5805):1592–1594.  2006.  Uranium-lead dates on the flowstones immediately above and below Little Foot, by a team not involved in the excavation.  It is the main source of the 2.2-million-year date.

1. 5a.

   Section Abstract:  “yield ages of 2.17 ± 0.17 million years ago (Ma) and 2.24 +0.09/−0.07 Ma, respectively, indicating an age for StW 573 of close to 2.2 Ma.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

Stratford, Dominic et al.  “Comments on 'The age of fossil StW573 ('Little Foot'):  An alternative interpretation of 26Al/10Be burial data'.”  South African Journal of Science 113(5/6):a0213.  2017.  The Little Foot excavators' point-by-point reply to Kramers and Dirks's argument that the skeleton is younger than 2.8 million years.

1. 6a.

   Page 2:  “The specimen was embedded in talus cone breccia in dry conditions, as evidenced by the mummification of the body which lies conformably within the talus slope.” ↩

2. 6b.

   Page 1:  “careful stratigraphic mapping refined and expanded in Bruxelles et al. shows that the speleothems postdate the skeleton and thus cannot be used to determine more than a minimum age for the specimen.” ↩ ↩

3. 6c.

   Page 1:  “The regression of Granger et al. showed that Member 2 continued to accumulate cosmogenic nuclides after deposition, and that the total amount of 26Al and 10Be produced was 85±13 and 21±3 thousand atoms per gram, respectively.” ↩

Vermeesch, Pieter et al.  “Geochronology of Taung and other southern African australopiths.”  Author's manuscript of a book chapter.  2025.  A review of every attempt to date the Taung child, with a new uranium-lead date on a flowstone above the fossil deposit, by geochronologists at University College London, Birkbeck, the British Geological Survey and Portsmouth.  It is unusually frank about what the methods cannot do.  Locators are to the manuscript's own page numbers.

1. 7a.

   Page 1:  “In the case of southern African carbonates, this correction sometimes exceeds 50%.” ↩

2. 7b.

   Page 6:  “This approach was limited by the assumption that the FADs and LADs of species or genera are shared across distinct biogeographic regions, and because assigned ages are approximate and difficult to verify.”  FADs and LADs are first and last appearance dates. ↩

3. 7c.

   Page 2:  “The situation is further complicated for Taung because the exact location of its discovery is unknown.” ↩ ↩

4. 7d.

   Page 7:  “Vogel and Partridge (1984) obtained a 234U/238U disequilibrium date of 942 ± 90 ka for the top of the Thabaseek formation. A follow-up study by Tobias et al. (1993) produced two more dates of 999 ± 64 ka and 762 ± 13 ka, respectively.”  “The Th/U disequilibrium dates are probably wrong or, more precisely, they do not record the formation age of the Thabaseek tufa. The very high 234U/238U-activity ratios measured by Vogel and Partridge (1984), and the unusual variability of the dates presented by Tobias et al. (1993) likely reflect open system behaviour, whereby uranium was added or substituted after deposition”. ↩ ↩ ↩

5. 7e.

   Page 1:  “One century after the Taung juvenile's discovery, its age and that of many other southern African australopiths remains unknown.”  “The uncorrected 206Pb/238U isochron age for the sample is 3.30 ± 0.12 Ma. Disequilibrium correction lowers this value to 2.05 +0.11/−0.08 Ma, a correction of 40%. The 207Pb/235U isochron age of 2.961 ± 0.058 Ma is close to the uncorrected 206Pb/238U age.”  “the 207Pb/235U isochron age of ∼3 Ma is a minimum age estimate for the flowstone and for the Taung juvenile, placing both firmly in the Pliocene epoch.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

The ratios use 4,500 years, Creation Ministries International's figure for the time since the caves formed.⁹  Ages:  Little Foot 3.67 million years by burial dating, 816 times 4,500;  Member 4 3.41 million, 758 times;  Taung's uranium-lead minimum 2.96 million, 658 times;  Little Foot's flowstones 2.2 million, 489 times;  the youngest Member 4 flowstone 2.01 million, 447 times.  On the longest Bible-based chronology, which allows a Flood up to 5,411 years ago, the factors are 678, 630, 547, 407 and 371.  The aluminium-26 and beryllium-10 half-lives used are 0.705 and 1.387 million years.  At those rates a 4,500-year burial lowers the ratio of the two isotopes by 0.22 percent;  3.41 and 3.67 million years leave 19.2 and 17.0 percent of the starting ratio.  The mainstream disagreement, 3.67 against 2.2 million and 3.41 against 2.01, is a factor of 1.67 to 1.70.  Any part of the 4,500 years that passed before the caves filled shortens the window and raises the factors. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

“What date would you like?”  Creation 45(2):10.  Apr 2023.  An unsigned news item in Creation Ministries International's magazine, reporting Granger and colleagues' 2022 burial dates for Sterkfontein and stating the ministry's own account of the caves.  It is the clearest statement found of where a young-earth ministry places the australopith cave deposits in time.

1. 9a.

   Paragraph 2:  “The caves formed late in Noah's Flood some 4,500 years ago. The remains of these apish primates at Sterkfontein (australopithecines) were interred after the Flood after the animals had dispersed into the area from the Middle East.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

Oard, Michael J.  “Much Greater Cosmic Rays During the Ice Age and Before.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 58(1):30–48.  2021.  The fullest young-earth treatment of cosmogenic dating, by a prolific young-earth writer on the Ice Age.  It proposes much higher cosmic-ray rates in the past for exposure dating, and on burial dating it concedes that accelerated decay must have continued after the Flood.

1. 10a.

   Page 39:  “But, secular scientists find values around three or four. Such a ratio implies hundreds of thousands to a few million years of age. This means that much accelerated radiometric decay has taken place after the Flood.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 10b.

   Page 38:  “This is about three times the Biblical age, suggesting the production rate in the Biblical timescale would be roughly three times that of the secular timescale. We can probably apply this correction factor worldwide for all the measurements.”  Oard derives the factor from one Scottish moraine dated by radiocarbon to 12,480 years, which he places at about 4,000 years ago. ↩

3. 10c.

   Page 39:  “Snelling (2005) found very few radiohaloes in Tertiary-aged granites, interpreted as post-Flood, suggesting that accelerated radiometric decay had ended.”  Oard goes on to argue that the Tertiary is mostly from the Flood and that.  “accelerated radiometric decay continued for a while after the Flood”. ↩ ↩

This article's calculation.  Underground beryllium-10 made in a burial of t years at production rate P, with decay constant λ, is P(1 − e^(−λt))/λ.  With P = 0.030 atoms per gram per year, Granger's expected rate at 10 m depth and density 2.0, which overstates the rate at Little Foot's 23 m;  λ for a half-life of 1.387 million years;  and t = 4,500 years, the result is 135 atoms per gram.  Stratford and colleagues give 21,000 ± 3,000, so 18,000 to 24,000, which is 133 to 178 times more.  If decay is 816 times faster, the count levels off at P/λ = 74 atoms per gram and reaches 62 in 4,500 years, which is 290 to 390 times less than measured.  On the mainstream age the measured count implies a production rate of about 0.0125 atoms per gram per year, which is consistent with a depth greater than 10 m. ↩ ↩ ↩

Keith, Arthur et al.  “The Fossil Anthropoid Ape from Taungs.”  Nature 115(2885):234–236.  Feb 14, 1925.  Four short replies to Dart, published a week after his paper by the leading British anatomists and palaeontologists of the day.  All four treat the Taung child as an anthropoid ape.

1. 12a.

   Page 235:  “The simian infant discovered by him is an unmistakable anthropoid ape that seems to be much on the same grade of development as the gorilla and the chimpanzee without being identical with either.”  G. Elliot Smith. ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 12b.

   Page 234:  “Data which I collected 25 years ago show that these teeth reach this stage near the end of the 4th year, two years earlier than is the rule in man”.  “In size of brain this new form is not human but anthropoid.”  “the size of the adult brain will not exceed 520 c.c.”  “one is inclined to place Australopithecus in the same group or sub-family as the chimpanzee and gorilla. It is an allied genus. It seems to be near akin to both, differing from them in shape of head and brain and in a tendency to the retention of infantile characters.”  Arthur Keith. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 12c.

   Page 235:  “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee.”  Page 236:  “cannot fail to regret that he has chosen for it so barbarous (Latin-Greek) a name as Australopithecus.”  Arthur Smith Woodward. ↩

Keith, Arthur.  “Australopithecinae or Dartians.”  Nature 159(4037):377.  Mar 15, 1947.  A short letter in which Keith, the most prominent of Dart's 1925 critics, publicly withdrew his objection after seeing Broom's adult fossils.

1. 13a.

   Page 377:  “I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and chimpanzee. Like Prof. Le Gros Clark, I am now convinced, on the evidence submitted by Dr. Robert Broom, that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong; the Australopithecinae are in or near the line which culminated in the human form.”  “The Dartians are ground-living anthropoids, human in posture, gait and dentition, but still anthropoid in facial physiognomy and in size of brain.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

Broom, R.  “A New Fossil Anthropoid Skull from South Africa.”  Nature 138(3490):486–488.  Sep 19, 1936.  Robert Broom's first report of an adult australopith, a natural brain cast and part of a skull blasted out of the Sterkfontein lime works.  He named it Australopithecus transvaalensis, later moved to Plesianthropus and now to A. africanus.

1. 14a.

   Page 488:  “This discovery shows that we had in South Africa during Pleistocene times large non-forest living anthropoids—not very closely allied to either the chimpanzee or the gorilla but showing distinct relationships to the Miocene and especially to the Pliocene species of Dryopithecus. They also show a number of typical human characters not met with in any of the living anthropoids.” ↩

2. 14b.

   Page 486:  “handed me the brain cast of what appeared to be a large anthropoid (Fig. 1). It had been blasted out of the side of the cave a couple of days before.” ↩

3. 14c.

   Page 488:  “I think the Taungs deposit will probably prove to be Lower or Middle Pleistocene, while the Sterkfontein deposit is most probably Upper Pleistocene.” ↩ ↩

Broom, R.  “Discovery of a New Skull of the South African Ape-Man, Plesianthropus.”  Nature 159(4046):672.  May 17, 1947.  Broom's one-page announcement of Sts 5, the near-complete adult skull nicknamed "Mrs Ples", found at Sterkfontein in April 1947.

1. 15a.

   Page 672:  “it seems probable that it will be about 500 c.c.”  Broom's estimate of the brain cavity, made before the skull was cleaned. ↩

2. 15b.

   Page 672:  “But on April 18 a small blast cracked open a block of breccia, and there in the middle lay a perfect skull without the mandible of an adult Plesianthropus, with the brain case broken across.” ↩ ↩

Broom, R., and J. T. Robinson.  “Further Remains of the Sterkfontein Ape-man, Plesianthropus.”  Nature 160(4065):430–431.  Sep 27, 1947.  The first report of Sts 14, a partial skeleton with a nearly complete pelvis, found at Sterkfontein on 1 August 1947.  It is the first australopith pelvis ever found.

1. 16a.

   Page 431:  “The pelvis, as will be seen from the accompanying drawing, has an ilium which is almost typically human. … Had this ilium been found alone, some would probably have claimed it as human, though no one would have been likely to have argued that it was only a chimpanzee pelvis. Fortunately, the ischium is well preserved, though the lower part is crushed; and certainly the ischium is not quite human.”  “The skeleton was probably that of a female who stood about 4 ft. in height or a little less.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 16b.

   Page 430:  “On August 1 we discovered part of a skeleton with a perfect pelvis, much of a femur, a tibia, some ribs and vertebra, and parts of the skull very badly crushed and broken.” ↩ ↩

University of the Witwatersrand.  “Little Foot's history revealed for the first time.”  Wits University news.  Dec 20, 2018.  The university's summary of Ron Clarke's 2019 paper in the Journal of Human Evolution on the excavation and taphonomy of Little Foot, which was not itself obtained.

1. 17a.

   “In 1994 and 1997, Clarke identified 12 foot and lower leg bones of one Australopithecus individual misidentified as animal fossils in boxes stored at Sterkfontein and at the University of Witwatersrand.” ↩

2. 17b.

   “after falling into a deep cave, the female Australopithecus was mummified during dry conditions. This was followed by slight displacement of some skeletal parts through slippage on the rock-strewn talus slope in the cave, crushing and breaking of some bones through rockfall and pressure, calcification after a change to wet conditions, and then slight downward collapse of part of the cave infill. This partial collapse left voids that were later filled with stalagmitic flowstone that encased breaks through the femurs.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Clarke, Ronald J., and Phillip V. Tobias.  “Sterkfontein Member 2 foot bones of the oldest South African hominid.”  Science 269(5223):521–524.  1995.  The first description of four articulating foot bones from Sterkfontein Member 2, later found to belong to the Little Foot skeleton.

1. 18a.

   Section Abstract:  “They have human features in the hindfoot and strikingly apelike traits in the forefoot.” ↩

2. 18b.

   Section Abstract:  “While the foot is manifestly adapted for bipedalism, its most remarkable characteristic is that the great toe (hallux) is appreciably medially diverged (varus) and strongly mobile, as in apes.” ↩

University of the Witwatersrand.  “Little Foot takes a bow.”  Wits University news.  Dec 6, 2017.  The university's announcement of the unveiling of the cleaned and reconstructed Little Foot skeleton, with the history of its discovery.

1. 19a.

   “Clarke sent his assistants Stephen Motsumi and Nkwane Molefe into the deep underground cave to search for any possible broken bone surface that might fit with the bones he had discovered in boxes. Within two days of searching, they found such a contact, in July 1997.”  “started the specialised process of excavating the skeleton in the cave up through 2012, when the last visible elements were removed to the surface in blocks of breccia.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Crompton, Robin H. et al.  “StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus:  Its Significance for an Australopith Bauplan.”  Folia Primatologica 92:243–275.  2021.  A synthesis by the Little Foot team of what the skeleton implies for how all australopiths moved and lived.

1. 20a.

   Section Abstract:  “From these, we conclude that the habitual locomotor mode of all australopiths was upright bipedalism, whether on the ground or on branches.”  “Each was probably substantially arboreal and woodland-dwelling, relying substantially on arboreal resources.” ↩

2. 20b.

   Section Abstract:  “The StW 573 skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2 is some 93% complete and thus by far the most complete member of that genus yet found.” ↩

Bruxelles, Laurent et al.  “A multiscale stratigraphic investigation of the context of StW 573 'Little Foot' and Member 2, Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa.”  bioRxiv.  2018.  The preprint of the stratigraphic study of the Little Foot deposit, published in the Journal of Human Evolution in 2019.  It maps the rubble layers and flowstones around the skeleton and concludes that the dated flowstones filled spaces opened after burial.

1. 21a.

   “Member 2 is the basal allogenic unit of the Sterkfontein Formation.” ↩

2. 21b.

   “the presence of a complete and articulated Australopithecus skeleton with no observable biogenic modification”.  “the only hominin represented in the current Member 2 assemblage”. ↩ ↩

Moggi-Cecchi, Jacopo et al.  “Early hominid dental remains from Members 4 and 5 of the Sterkfontein Formation (1966–1996 excavations):  catalogue, individual associations, morphological descriptions and initial metrical analysis.”  Journal of Human Evolution 50(3):239–328.  2006.  The catalogue of teeth from thirty years of excavation at Sterkfontein, which is the best published count of how much material there is.

1. 22a.

   Section Abstract:  “The fossils recovered from the Sterkfontein Formation represent, without doubt, the largest collection of early hominid specimens from a single locality. Among the over 600 entries in the catalogue of fossil hominid specimens recovered since 1966, there are 242 dental remains (isolated teeth, jaws with two or more teeth, isolated teeth in association) for a total number of 495 teeth.” ↩

McHenry, Henry M., and Lee R. Berger.  “Body proportions in Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus and the origin of the genus Homo.”  Journal of Human Evolution 35(1):1–22.  1998.  A comparison of the joint sizes of more than 48 africanus arm and leg bones from Sterkfontein Member 4, including the StW 431 partial skeleton, with afarensis, apes and humans.  It is the study behind the 1996 report that africanus was more ape-like in its body proportions than its supposed ancestor.

1. 23a.

   Section Abstract:  “The hindlimbs are much smaller with an average size matching a modern human of only 33 kg.”  “In contrast, A. afarensis and anamensis more closely approximate a human pattern of forelimb joint size.”  “the new postcranial material, however, reveals an apparently primitive morphology of relatively large forelimb and small hindlimb joints resembling more the pongid than the human pattern.”  The forelimb joints match a modern human of 53 kg.  These are joint-size equivalents, not body masses. ↩ ↩ ↩

Neubauer, Simon et al.  “Endocranial volume of Australopithecus africanus:  New CT-based estimates and the effects of missing data and small sample size.”  Journal of Human Evolution 62(4):498–510.  2012.  CT reconstructions of the braincases of Sts 5, Sts 60, Sts 71, StW 505, MLD 37/38 and Taung, with simulations of how much missing bone and a small sample could bias the species average.

1. 24a.

   Section Abstract:  “Incorporating missing data uncertainty of the five adult individuals, A. africanus was found to have an average adult endocranial volume of 454-461 ml with a standard deviation of 66-75 ml.”  “Our simulations show that missing data uncertainty is small given the missing portions of the investigated fossils, but that small sample sizes are problematic for estimating species average EV.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 24b.

   Section Abstract:  “EV estimates for the juvenile Taung individual range from 402 to 407 ml.” ↩

Conroy, Glenn C. et al.  “Endocranial capacity in an early hominid cranium from Sterkfontein, South Africa.”  Science 280(5370):1730–1731.  1998.  A CT measurement of the braincase of StW 505, the largest africanus skull.  The authors argue that some earlier brain-size estimates for early hominins were too high.

1. 25a.

   Section Abstract:  “endocranial capacity in an approximately 2.8- to 2.6-million-year-old early hominid cranium (Stw 505) from Sterkfontein, South Africa, tentatively assigned to Australopithecus africanus, is approximately 515 cubic centimeters.” ↩

Clarke, Ronald J., and Kathleen Kuman.  “The skull of StW 573, a 3.67 Ma Australopithecus prometheus skeleton from Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa.”  Journal of Human Evolution 134:102634.  2019.  The description of Little Foot's skull by its excavator, Ron Clarke, who assigns it to a second South African species, A. prometheus, beside A. africanus.  Locators are to the 2018 bioRxiv preprint.

1. 26a.

   Page 15:  “The uncorrected, and therefore minimum, endocranial volume of StW 573 is 408 cc (Beaudet et al., in press). This is clearly considerably smaller than that of StW 505, which Holloway (2012) has estimated at slightly above 575 cc.”  Clarke assigns StW 505 to his A. prometheus;  most researchers call it A. africanus. ↩

2. 26b.

   Page 1:  “we conclude that competitive exclusion probably accounts for the synchronous and sympatric presence of two species of Australopithecus in the younger deposits at Makapansgat and Sterkfontein Member 4.” ↩

Beaudet, Amélie et al.  “The endocast of StW 573 ("Little Foot") and hominin brain evolution.”  Journal of Human Evolution 126:112–123.  2019.  A CT study of the natural brain cast inside Little Foot's skull, compared with ten other South African hominins.  It gives the only brain-size figure for the skeleton and finds the brain's surface less derived than in later South African hominins.  The skull is distorted, so the volume is a minimum.

1. 27a.

   Section Abstract:  “The uncorrected and therefore minimum cranial capacity estimate is 408 cm3 and plots at the lower end of Australopithecus variation.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Gunz, Philipp et al.  “Australopithecus afarensis endocasts suggest ape-like brain organization and prolonged brain growth.”  Science Advances 6(14):eaaz4729.  2020.  A synchrotron CT study of A. afarensis braincases.  The article uses only its comparison figure for chimpanzee brain volume, from a sample of 240.

1. 28a.

   Section Results:  “The average adult EV of A. afarensis (445 ml; SD, 60 ml) is larger than in Pan troglodytes (369 ml; SD, 37 ml; N = 240).” ↩

Bromage, Timothy G., and M. Christopher Dean.  “Re-evaluation of the age at death of immature fossil hominids.”  Nature 317:525–527.  1985.  A study that counted growth increments on the surface of fossil front teeth to estimate how old juvenile hominins were when they died.  It was the first direct evidence that australopith children grew up on an ape-like schedule.

1. 29a.

   Section Abstract:  “We report here revised chronological ages at death of immature fossil hominids demonstrating for the first time that Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes.” ↩

Smith, Tanya M. et al.  “Dental ontogeny in Pliocene and early Pleistocene hominins.”  PLOS ONE 10(2):e0118118.  2015.  A synchrotron study of tooth growth in more than 20 juvenile fossil hominins.  It reviews the earlier age estimates for the Taung child.

1. 30a.

   Section Tooth Growth in Early Hominins:  “For A. africanus, their age at death for Sts 24 was subsequently used to infer that Taung was also approximately 3.3 years of age, as it died at a similar developmental stage, although this has subsequently been revised to 3.7–3.9 years based on information from StW 402”. ↩

Berger, Lee R.  “Brief communication:  Predatory bird damage to the Taung type-skull of Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131(2):166–168.  2006.  A short re-examination of the Taung skull that reports damage to the floors of the eye sockets like that left by crowned eagles on monkey skulls.  Berger first proposed eagle predation at Taung with Ron Clarke in 1995.

1. 31a.

   Section Abstract:  “reveals previously undescribed damage to the orbital floors that is nearly identical to that seen in the crania of monkeys preyed upon by crowned hawk eagles”.  “the Taung child itself was the victim of a bird of prey.” ↩

McGraw, W. Scott et al.  “Primate remains from African crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) nests in Ivory Coast's Tai Forest:  Implications for primate predation and early hominid taphonomy in South Africa.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131(2):151–165.  2006.  A study of about 1,200 bones collected under crowned eagle nests in West Africa, 669 of them from primates, used as a modern test of the claim that an eagle killed the Taung child.

1. 32a.

   Section Abstract:  “We concur with Berger and Clarke (1995 J. Hum. Evol. 29:275-299) that a large raptor could have been responsible for the death of the Taung child, Australopithecus africanus.” ↩

Carlson, Kristian J. et al.  “The pectoral girdle of StW 573 ("Little Foot") and its implications for shoulder evolution in the Hominina.”  Journal of Human Evolution 158:102983.  2021.  A description of Little Foot's collarbones and shoulder blades, the best preserved australopith shoulder, compared with apes and humans.  The authors are the Little Foot team, who otherwise stress its human-like features.

1. 33a.

   Section Abstract:  “The StW 573 pectoral girdle combines features intermediate between those of humans and other apes”.  “As the StW 573 pectoral girdle (e.g., scapular configuration) has a greater affinity to that of apes-Gorilla in particular-rather than modern humans, we suggest that the StW 573 morphological pattern appears to reflect adaptations to arboreal behaviors, especially those with the hand positioned above the head, more than human-like manipulatory capabilities.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Carlson, Kristian J. et al.  “Proportional limb strengths signal an adaptive shift in arboreality in early human evolution.”  Science Advances 12:eaeh1752.  2026.  A comparison of the bending strength of arm and leg bones, measured from CT cross-sections, in Little Foot, Lucy, other fossils, apes and humans.  Bone strength reflects how limbs were loaded in life, so it is evidence of behaviour, not only of shape.  It also gives Little Foot's estimated body mass, 40.2 kg.

1. 34a.

   Section Abstract:  “Australopithecus individuals of varying body sizes spanning at least 0.5 Ma exhibit African ape-like interlimb strength proportions, indicating frequent arboreal behavior, and that the Australopithecus lower limb exhibits human-like intralimb strength proportions.”  Section Discussion:  “In its relative limb strength and articular dimension patterns, StW 573 is even more African ape-like than the slightly younger and markedly smaller-bodied A. afarensis individual, A.L. 288-1”. ↩ ↩

Beaudet, Amélie et al.  “The atlas of StW 573 and the late emergence of human-like head mobility and brain metabolism.”  Scientific Reports 10:4285.  2020.  A description and shape analysis of Little Foot's first neck vertebra, which carries the skull, compared with living apes, humans and two other fossil atlases.

1. 35a.

   Section Results:  “Most dimensions of the StW 573 atlas fall within the ranges of those expressed by Pan … and Pongo to a lesser extent … and are smaller or at the lower end of the Homo range.”  The abstract concludes that the atlases.  “confirm the presence of an arboreal component in the positional repertoire of Australopithecus.” ↩

Prabhat, Anjali M. et al.  “Homoplasy in the evolution of modern human-like joint proportions in Australopithecus afarensis.”  eLife 10:e65897.  2021.  A comparison of upper- and lower-limb joint sizes in apes, humans and 16 fossil hominin partial skeletons.  It sorts A. africanus with the more ape-like hominins and A. afarensis with the human-like ones.

1. 36a.

   Section Abstract:  “Here, we find the limb joint proportions of Australopithecus afarensis, Homo erectus, and Homo naledi to resemble those of modern humans, whereas those of A. africanus, Australopithecus sediba, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis, and Homo floresiensis are more ape-like.” ↩

Heaton, Jason L. et al.  “The long limb bones of the StW 573 Australopithecus skeleton from Sterkfontein Member 2:  Descriptions and proportions.”  Journal of Human Evolution 133.  2019.  The description of Little Foot's arm and leg bones, with its limb-length ratios compared with apes, monkeys, humans including the smallest-bodied populations, and Lucy.  The published version is on pages 167–197;  the page numbers given here are those of the 2018 preprint.

1. 37a.

   Page 43:  “StW 573 exhibits a humerofemoral index (86.6) significantly, yet equally, distant from the means for Pan and modern humans”.  The same page gives the means:  102.1 for Pan troglodytes and 71.1 for modern humans. ↩

2. 37b.

   Page 55:  “Excluding the crural index, the pattern of relative limb proportions of StW 573 was not observed in any living population of modern humans, even among the smallest-bodied (i.e., pygmy) groups, and the pattern was often unlike those of suspensory-adapted apes.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Spoor, Fred et al.  “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion.”  Nature 369:645–648.  1994.  A CT study of the semicircular canals, the inner-ear organs that sense head rotation, in living primates and fossil hominins.  Their size and shape track how an animal moves.

1. 38a.

   Section Abstract:  “Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes.” ↩

Beaudet, Amélie et al.  “The bony labyrinth of StW 573 ("Little Foot"):  Implications for early hominin evolution and paleobiology.”  Journal of Human Evolution 127:67–80.  2019.  A shape analysis of Little Foot's inner ear against 17 South African fossil hominins, ten modern humans and ten chimpanzees.

1. 39a.

   Section Abstract:  “Cochlear morphology in StW 573 is similar to that of other Australopithecus as well as to Paranthropus specimens included in this study, but it is substantially different from early Homo.” ↩

Braga, José et al.  “Cochlear shape distinguishes southern African early hominin taxa with unique auditory ecologies.”  Scientific Reports 11:17018.  2021.  A shape analysis of the cochlea, the hearing organ of the inner ear, in South African fossil hominins.  It is the one inner-ear result that points toward early Homo for africanus, and the article reports it for that reason.

1. 40a.

   Section Abstract:  “cochlear shape in A. africanus is more variable, resembles that of early Homo, and shows a degree of morphological polymorphism comparable to that evinced by modern species.” ↩ ↩

Berge, Christine, and Dionysis Goularas.  “A new reconstruction of Sts 14 pelvis (Australopithecus africanus) from computed tomography and three-dimensional modeling techniques.”  Journal of Human Evolution 58(3):262–272.  2010.  A reconstruction of the Sts 14 pelvis from CT scans, restoring both sacroiliac joints in three dimensions.  It finds a broad, platypelloid birth canal like Lucy's and a less tilted sacrum than in modern humans.  The article uses it for the shape of the Sts 14 pelvis.

1. 41a.

   Section Abstract:  “The present reconstruction of the Sts 14 pelvis is consistent with Schmid's (1983) … and Häusler and Schmid's A.L. 288-1 … pelvic reconstructions by illustrating a relatively platypelloid shape of the pelvic cavity and laterally inclined iliac blades.”  “We deduce a human-like movement of rotation and flexion of the fetal skull in the Sts 14 pelvic cavity.” ↩

Crompton, Robin et al.  “Bipedalism or bipedalisms:  The os coxae of StW 573.”  Journal of Anatomy 248:163–183.  2026.  A statistical comparison of the hip bones of Little Foot and StW 431 with modern humans, apes and other fossil pelves.  It finds the two Sterkfontein hips more human-like than Sts 14 or Lucy, and argues for two species and more than one kind of bipedal walking.

1. 42a.

   Section Abstract:  “StW 573 and StW 431 from Sterkfontein Member 4 are consistently classified together with modern humans.”  “Although clearly exhibiting the classic "basin shaped" bipedal pelvis, Sts 14 (also from Sterkfontein), AL 288-1 Australopithecus afarensis, MH2 Australopithecus sediba and KNM-WT 15000 occupy a position more peripheral to modern humans, and in some analyses are assigned to an indeterminate outlying group.”  StW 573 is from Member 2 and StW 431 from Member 4. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

Cazenave, Marine et al.  “Swartkrans Paranthropus and Sterkfontein Australopithecus from southern Africa had different locomotor repertoires.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 123:e2532193123.  2026.  A study of the internal bone structure of hip, knee and ankle joints in five Member 4 australopith leg bones, compared with Paranthropus, apes and humans.  Internal bone remodels to the loads it carries, so it records how the animal moved.

1. 43a.

   Section Abstract:  “Australopithecus from a c. 3.4 Ma level at the site of Sterkfontein displays a more modern human-like structural pattern across the lower limb joints consistent with comparatively more frequent terrestrial bipedalism.” ↩ ↩

Georgiou, Leoni et al.  “Evidence for habitual climbing in a Pleistocene hominin in South Africa.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(15):8416–8423.  2020.  A study of the internal bone structure of two Sterkfontein thigh-bone heads.  The africanus one loads like a human's;  the younger one, of uncertain genus, loads like an ape's.

1. 44a.

   Section Abstract:  “The trabecular structure of a proximal femur (StW 522) attributed to Australopithecus africanus exhibits a modern human-like bipedal locomotor pattern”. ↩

McHenry, Henry M., and Amanda L. Jones.  “Hallucial convergence in early hominids.”  Journal of Human Evolution 50(5):534–539.  2006.  A measurement of the joint between the big-toe metatarsal and the foot in apes, humans and fossils, used to test whether any early hominin could grasp with its big toe.

1. 45a.

   Section Abstract:  “The first report on the discovery of the foot of the Stw 573 skeleton emphasized the apparent transitional nature of its great toe”.  “The results are consistent with the view that all currently known hominids were specialized for bipedality and lacked the ape-like ability to oppose the great toe.” ↩

Martin, Jesse M. et al.  “The StW 573 Little Foot Fossil Should Not Be Attributed to Australopithecus prometheus.”  American Journal of Biological Anthropology 188(4):e70177.  2025.  A test of whether Little Foot shares the distinctive traits of the type specimen of Clarke's A. prometheus, a Makapansgat skull.  It finds that it does not, and that it also differs from the usual africanus fossils.

1. 46a.

   Section Abstract:  “Conversely, while StW 573 cannot be attributed to A. prometheus, the results of this study indicate that it also differs in meaningful ways from specimens conventionally attributed to A. africanus.” ↩

Fornai, Cinzia et al.  “Sacrum morphology supports taxonomic heterogeneity of "Australopithecus africanus" at Sterkfontein Member 4.”  Communications Biology 4:347.  2021.  A three-dimensional shape comparison of the sacrums of Sts 14 and StW 431 against modern humans and great apes.  It asks how often two specimens as different as these would be drawn from one living species.

1. 47a.

   Section Abstract:  “The probabilities of sampling morphologies as distinct as Sts 14 and StW 431 from a single species ranged from 1.3 to 2.5% for the human sample, and from 0.0 to 4.5% for the great apes, depending on the species and the analysis.”  “Sexual dimorphism and developmental or geologic age could not adequately explain the differences between StW 431 and Sts 14, suggesting that they are unlikely to be conspecific.” ↩ ↩

Macho, Gabriele A. et al.  “The partial skeleton StW 431 from Sterkfontein:  Is it time to rethink the Plio-Pleistocene hominin diversity in South Africa?”  Journal of Anthropological Sciences 98.  2020.  A review of the StW 431 partial skeleton that finds it fits neither Little Foot nor the other Sterkfontein fossils called africanus.

1. 48a.

   Section Abstract:  “Surprisingly, StW 431 cannot be unequivocally aligned with either StW 573 or other hominins from Sterkfontein commonly attributed to A. africanus (nor with Paranthropus robustus and Australopithecus sediba).”  “raises questions whether it is justified to subsume hominins from Taung, Makapansgat and Sterkfontein (and Gladysvale) within a single taxon.” ↩ ↩

Harmon, Elizabeth.  “Size and shape variation in the proximal femur of Australopithecus africanus.”  Journal of Human Evolution 56(6):551–559.  2009.  A test of whether the upper thigh bones from Sterkfontein and Makapansgat vary more than one species would.

1. 49a.

   Section Abstract:  “The degree of size variation in the A. africanus proximal femur is consistent with that of a single species, and is most comparable to Homo and Pan, lower than A. afarensis, and lower than some estimates of cranial and dental variation.” ↩ ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “How Do Hominids Fit with the Bible?”  Institute for Creation Research.  Apr 30, 2020.  A short popular article by an Institute for Creation Research science writer that sorts hominin fossils into apes, mixtures and humans.

1. 50a.

   Paragraph The first group is ape:  “These fossils rightly bear the ape name Australopithecus.” ↩

O'Micks, J.  “Likely Discontinuity Between Humans and Non-Human Hominins Based on Endocranial Volume and Body Mass With a Special Focus on Homo naledi:  A Short Analysis.”  Answers Research Journal 10:241–243.  2017.  A short creationist analysis that clusters fourteen hominin species by average brain volume and body mass.  It is a crude measure, two numbers per species, and it is cited only for where it puts africanus.

1. 51a.

   Section Results:  “The second cluster is made up of Homo habilis, Homo naledi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus boisei, Paranthropus aethiopicus, and Ardipithecus ramidus.” ↩

Wood, Todd Charles.  “Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin.”  Answers Research Journal 3:71–90.  2010.  A young-earth biologist's statistical re-analysis of eight published tables of skull and tooth characters, compiled by mainstream researchers, to find which fossils group with humans.  Wood directs the Core Academy of Science.

1. 52a.

   Page 71:  “Results indicate that hominins may be divided into as many as four different holobaramins: (1) the genus Homo (including Australopithecus sediba), (2) the genus Paranthropus, (3) Australopithecus africanus, and (4) Gorilla, Pan, Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus garhi.” ↩

2. 52b.

   Page 83:  “In summary, the evidence for including Au. africanus within the human holobaramin appears quite weak.”  His reasons, on the same page:  positive correlation with only one and four human taxa in two data sets, an outlier position in the three-dimensional plots, bootstrap support of 62 and 59 percent, a correlation that disappeared when fewer outgroups were used, and a significant negative correlation between the specimen Sts 5 and most of the human specimens in Zeitoun's data set. ↩

3. 52c.

   Page 85:  “Au. africanus is never correlated with Au. afarensis.”  “The robust australopiths (genus Paranthropus) can be provisionally classified as one holobaramin, and Au. africanus comprises a second potential holobaramin.” ↩

Sinclair, P., and Todd C. Wood.  “Revising Hominin Baraminology with Medoid Partitioning and Fuzzy Analysis.”  Answers Research Journal 14:451–462.  2021.  A rerun of the young-earth sorting of hominin fossils with standard statistical clustering methods, made in response to a creationist critic of the earlier method.

1. 53a.

   Section Results:  “This partition consists of three clusters with average silhouette widths ranging from 0.58 to 0.59 (table 2, fig. 2). The first cluster consists of members of the genus Homo together with Au. sediba. The second cluster consists of chimpanzee and the remaining members of the genus Australopithecus. The third cluster contains all three species of the genus Paranthropus.” ↩

2. 53b.

   Section Results:  “the individual silhouette width for Au. africanus was negative for baraminic distances (-0.05) and Jaccard distances (-0.09)”.  Section Discussion:  “This is very much a minority position”. ↩

Wood, Todd Charles, and Peter S. Brummel.  “Hominin Baraminology Reconsidered with Postcranial Characters.”  Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Creationism, 251–266.  2023.  The first young-earth sorting of hominins that uses bones below the skull:  239 new characters for 14 taxa, analysed alone and combined with skull characters, 44 cluster runs in all.  It folds the Little Foot material into A. africanus.

1. 54a.

   Page 252:  “We also elected to include Au. africanus and Little Foot skeletal material in the taxon Au. africanus sensu lato rather than taking a position on the status of Au. prometheus”. ↩

2. 54b.

   Page 263:  “Australopithecus africanus s.l. clusters with Au. afarensis in 89% of the partitions, but Au. africanus s.l. clusters with Au. sediba in only 46% of our partitions.”  “The first cluster contains chimpanzee, gorilla, and Ardipithecus. The second cluster contains Au. afarensis and Au. africanus s.l. The third cluster contains all Homo taxa and Au. sediba.” ↩

3. 54c.

   Page 257:  “Medoid partitioning of the simple matching and Jaccard distances places Au. africanus s.l. consistently in the Homo + Au. sediba cluster, resulting in strongly negative silhouette widths for Au africanus s.l.”  For the high-relevance skull and tooth characters;  the sentence runs onto page 258. ↩

4. 54d.

   Page 264, table 2:  Au. africanus s.l. falls in the same cluster as H. sapiens in 23 percent of the 44 partitions, and as chimpanzee and gorilla in 27 percent. ↩

5. 54e.

   Page 265:  “With the relative completeness of the Little Foot skeleton, the postcranial taxic relevance of Au. africanus s.l. should increase to near 1, but the skeleton is presently unreconstructed and mostly unavailable in public 3D scanning databases.” ↩ ↩

Reeves, Colin R.  “A Critical Evaluation of Statistical Baraminology:  Part 1, Statistical Principles.”  Answers Research Journal 14:261–269.  2021.  A critique of statistical baraminology by a creationist statistician, published in Answers in Genesis's own research journal.  It is the strongest objection to the method from inside the movement, and it is why Sinclair and Wood reran their analysis with standard clustering tools.

1. 55a.

   Section Abstract:  “that these methods are based on a shaky understanding of statistical principles, and that their use ought to be abandoned.” ↩ ↩

Budinsky, Donny.  “The Famous Missing Link:  Has the Lucy debate been settled?”  Truth In Research / Standing For Truth Creation Ministry.  Aug 2025.  An 8-page paper by a young-earth creationist who says he once argued the pygmy-human view himself.  He tests Christopher Rupe's Lucy hypothesis against Little Foot and Ardipithecus and concludes that creationists should not adopt it.

1. 56a.

   “It cannot be argued that Little Foot is a mixed species.”  His conclusion:  “There are still too many challenges and inconsistencies to "the pygmy human hypothesis" for it to be adopted by Creationists.” ↩ ↩

Weij, Rieneke et al.  “Taung and beyond:  The mining history, geology and taphonomy of Australopithecus in South Africa.”  South African Journal of Science 121(1/2):18509.  2025.  A centenary review of how the South African fossil caves formed, filled and were mined, by a team at the University of Cape Town that dates cave flowstones.

1. 57a.

   Page 2:  “Speleothems, including flowstones, form only under the right climatic conditions when there is sufficient vegetation cover above the cave and water infiltrating the karst.”  “The evident cycles of deposition, erosion, and redeposition (Figure 2) in South African cave deposits”. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 57b.

   Page 1:  “These caves and palaeocave remnants formed within the Palaeoproterozoic Malmani (the Cradle and Makapan Valley) and Reivilo (Taung) Dolomites within the Transvaal Supergroup”. ↩ ↩

Frost, Stephen R. et al.  “Biochronology of South African hominin-bearing sites:  A reassessment using cercopithecid primates.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(45):e2210627119.  2022.  A reassessment of the ages of the South African hominin caves from their fossil monkeys, chiefly the steady growth in molar size in the Theropithecus lineage, anchored to uranium-lead dates from other South African caves.  It is the main faunal argument for the younger ages.

1. 58a.

   Section Results:  “Based on correlations with Makapansgat combined with reversed paleomagnetic samples and multiple U-Pb dates, Sterkfontein Members 4 and 2 (including the Silberberg Grotto and Stw 573) are best estimated between ∼2.6 and 2.0 Ma.”  “Thus, we find no support for the proposed ∼3.67 Ma date for the Stw 573 skeleton”. ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 58b.

   Section Results:  “an overall broad estimate between ∼2.8 and 2.0 Ma”.  For the Taung deposits. ↩

Partridge, T. C. et al.  “The new hominid skeleton from Sterkfontein, South Africa:  age and preliminary assessment.”  Journal of Quaternary Science 14(4):293–298.  1999.  The first dating of Little Foot, from the magnetism of flowstones above and below the skeleton, by the geologist who had worked on the Sterkfontein deposits since the 1970s, with Little Foot's excavator.

1. 59a.

   Section Abstract:  “Five changes in magnetic polarity have been identified; when constrained by the available biostratigraphy, this sequence can be placed confidently between 3.22 and 3.58 Ma.” ↩ ↩

Herries, Andy I. R., and John Shaw.  “Palaeomagnetic analysis of the Sterkfontein palaeocave deposits:  Implications for the age of the hominin fossils and stone tool industries.”  Journal of Human Evolution 60(5):523–539.  2011.  A magnetic study of silts and flowstones from Members 1 to 5 and the Little Foot grotto.  It is the main magnetic argument for the younger ages.

1. 60a.

   Section Abstract:  “Palaeomagnetic analysis of the Silberberg Grotto deposits identifies a single short geomagnetic field event in flowstone overlying the StW 573 Australopithecus fossil, which is suggested to represent the Rèunion event at ~2.16 Ma.”  “Based on a reversed polarity for the deposits below the skeleton it cannot be older than 2.58 Ma.” ↩ ↩

2. 60b.

   Section Abstract:  “Palaeomagnetic analysis of siltstone and speleothem from the bulk of Member 4 indicate a reversed magnetic polarity that dates the deposits and its Australopithecus africanus fossils to between 2.58 and ~2.16 Ma.” ↩

Pickering, Robyn, and Jan D. Kramers.  “Re-appraisal of the stratigraphy and determination of new U-Pb dates for the Sterkfontein hominin site, South Africa.”  Journal of Human Evolution 59(1):70–86.  2010.  Uranium-lead dates on the flowstones between the fossil layers at Sterkfontein, treated as brackets on the layers' ages.  It is the main radiometric statement of the younger-age case.

1. 61a.

   Section Abstract:  “Member 2 is between 2.8 +/- 0.28 and 2.6 +/- 0.30 Ma and Member 4 between 2.65 +/- 0.30 and 2.01 +/- 0.05 Ma.”  “We believe that these deposits, including the fossil and the flowstones, accumulated rapidly around 2.2 Ma.” ↩ ↩

Granger, Darryl E. et al.  “Cosmogenic nuclide dating of Australopithecus at Sterkfontein, South Africa.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(27):e2123516119.  2022.  Burial dates for Member 4, the layer that holds Mrs Ples, Sts 14 and most of the africanus fossils, with field evidence that the previously dated flowstones filled spaces dissolved into the rubble after it was cemented.  It is the main statement of the older-age case.

1. 62a.

   Section Abstract:  “Here, we report a cosmogenic nuclide isochron burial date of 3.41 ± 0.11 million years (My) within the lower middle part of Member 4, and simple burial dates of 3.49 ± 0.19 My in the upper middle part of Member 4 and 3.61 ± 0.09 My in Jacovec Cavern.” ↩ ↩

2. 62b.

   Section Discussion:  “We believe that previous dating of flowstones by U-Pb and paleomagnetism is correct but that the dates indicate the age of flowstone deposition rather than accumulation of the breccia.” ↩ ↩

3. 62c.

   Section Introduction:  “Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of fossil teeth exhibits a large spread from ∼1 to 4 My”.  “we consider the ESR ages unreliable”. ↩

4. 62d.

   Section Results:  “The postburial 10Be production rate determined from the isochron fit is 0.028 ± 0.003 at g−1 yr−1, matching the expected value of 0.030 at g−1 yr−1 at a depth of 10 m and density of 2.0 g cm−3”. ↩

5. 62e.

   Section Materials and Methods:  “All burial ages were calculated assuming a surface 26Al/10Be production rate ratio of 6.8”. ↩

Partridge, T. C. et al.  “Lower Pliocene hominid remains from Sterkfontein.”  Science 300(5619):607–612.  2003.  The first burial dates for Little Foot and the Jacovec Cavern fossils, from single samples, later superseded by the isochron method.

1. 63a.

   Section Abstract:  “These dates indicate that the skeleton StW 573 and newly discovered specimens from Jacovec Cavern have much the same age: approximately 4 million years.” ↩ ↩

Kramers, Jan D., and Paul H. G. M. Dirks.  “The age of fossil StW573 ('Little Foot'):  An alternative interpretation of 26Al/10Be burial data.”  South African Journal of Science 113(3/4):1–8.  2017.  A re-analysis of Granger's 2015 burial data by two geochronologists not involved in the excavation.  It argues that some quartz was re-deposited from a higher chamber, and that the skeleton is younger than 2.8 million years.  The excavators replied in the same journal.

1. 64a.

   Page 1:  “Data on chert samples taken close to StW573 impose a maximum age for the fossil of 2.8 Ma – younger than the 3.67 Ma originally reported.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 64b.

   Page 2:  “The present depth below surface of StW573 is 23 m”. ↩

Thackeray, Francis.  “A biochronological date of 3.6 million years for "Little Foot" (StW 573, Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein, South Africa).”  Evolutionary Anthropology 33(6):e22049.  2024.  An age estimate for Little Foot from the length-to-breadth ratio of its first lower molar, using a regression on dated hominin teeth.  The author presents it as a hypothesis.

1. 65a.

   Section Abstract:  “A regression model applied to estimate its age provides a hypothesized date of 3.6 Ma, which compares favorably with the existing cosmogenic dates.” ↩

Thackeray, Francis.  “The Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus), the Plio-Pleistocene boundary and a supernova hypothesis.”  South African Journal of Science 121(5/6):21846.  2025.  A short commentary for the Taung centenary that dates the child from its tooth proportions by the same regression method.

1. 66a.

   Page 1:  “It has been dated at 2.58 Ma on the basis of ratios of dental dimensions, using lower first molars.” ↩

Frost, Stephen R. et al.  “Reply to Granger et al.:  Multiple, independent lines of evidence suggest Sterkfontein is less than 2.8 My old.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(13):e2301351120.  2023.  The faunal team's reply to Granger and colleagues' defence of the burial dates.

1. 67a.

   Paragraph last:  “Thus, the available biochronological, U–Pb, and paleomagnetic analyses all converge on a time range less than ~2.8 Ma for Sterkfontein Members 2 and 4. In the past (e.g., the KBS tuff controversy), when new radiometric estimates conflicted with those based on biochronology, the faunal estimates ultimately proved more accurate.” ↩

Granger, Darryl E. et al.  “Monkey fossils do not negate cosmogenic dating at Sterkfontein.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(13):e2300314120.  2023.  The burial-dating team's letter in reply to Frost and colleagues' faunal argument.

1. 68a.

   Paragraph 1:  “Paleomagnetism and U–Pb measurements at Sterkfontein derive exclusively from flowstones that are intrusive or out of stratigraphic context and are, therefore, younger than the fossil-bearing breccia”.  Paragraph last:  “the faunal evidence does not warrant overturning robust, repeated, and internally consistent radiometric dating of the Sterkfontein breccia.” ↩

“Evolutionists 'go ape' over new fossils.”  Creation 21(2):49.  Mar 1999.  An unsigned news item on the first announcement of Little Foot in December 1998.  It is the only young-earth treatment of Little Foot found.

1. 69a.

   Paragraph last:  “Remove the guiding faith that humans evolved—somehow—and the evidence is consistent with successive post-Flood migrations of a handful of separate created kinds”.  Earlier the item calls the australopiths.  “just another type of ape.” ↩

Beasley, Greg.  “Pre-Flood Giantism:  A Key to the Interpretation of Fossil Hominids and Hominoids.”  Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 4:5–55.  1990.  A long paper in Creation Ministries International's technical journal proposing that apes and humans were larger before the Flood and shrank after it, so that many fossil hominids are large post-Flood apes.  The article cites it for where it places the australopiths in time.

1. 70a.

   Page 8:  “It is the opinion of this author that many of the so-called fossil hominids adorning current anthropological and palaeontological texts are giant forms of post-Flood anthropoid apes.” ↩

Grigg, Russell M.  “Raymond Dart and the 'missing link'.”  Creation 28(4):36–40.  Sep 2006.  A popular history of the Taung discovery in Creation Ministries International's magazine, ending with the ministry's own placement of the australopiths.

1. 71a.

   Section From a creation perspective:  “The best explanation for the Taung child and all the australopithecines is that they were a type of ape, unlike either modern apes or humans, which were created by God on Day 6 of Creation Week, and which are now extinct.” ↩ ↩

Lubenow, Marvin L.  Bones of Contention:  A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils.  Baker Books.  revised and updated edition.  2004.  The standard young-earth book on human fossils, first published in 1992.  Lubenow argues that true humans lived throughout the australopiths' time, so they cannot be human ancestors, and he uses the conventional dates to make that case.

1. 72a.

   Page 66:  “What happened to Partridge's work showing that Taung could be only about 0.75 million years old and hence could not possibly be our evolutionary ancestor? His work has not even been addressed, let alone answered. Instead, it is being disparaged.” ↩

2. 72b.

   Page 65:  “In 1973, South African geologist T. C. Partridge dropped a bomb. His investigations revealed that the cave from which the Taung skull had come could not have formed prior to 0.87 Mya”. ↩

3. 72c.

   Page 64:  “Although Dart's assessment was initially met with hostility and rejection, the eventual exposure of Piltdown Man as a hoax and the discovery of adult australopithecine fossils at other locations in South Africa turned that rejection into almost universal acceptance.” ↩

4. 72d.

   Page 66:  “A date for Taung of 2 Mya [million years ago] or more may seem most reasonable, but the argument is obviously circular and the true age remains uncertain.”  Lubenow is quoting the palaeoanthropologist Richard G. Klein. ↩

5. 72e.

   Page 66:  “That "ill-founded" date was supported by a date of about 1 Mya by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 ya and 764,000 ya on limestone.” ↩

De Swardt, A. M. J.  “Geomorphological dating of cave openings in South Africa.”  Nature 250:683.  Aug 23, 1974.  A short reply in Nature to Partridge's 1973 geomorphological dating of the Taung and Sterkfontein caves, by a geologist then with an oil exploration company.  Its argument was not read for this article;  it is cited only to show that Partridge's dates were answered in print. ↩

Weiner, J. S. et al.  “The Solution of the Piltdown Problem.”  Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology 2(3):139–146.  1953.  The paper that showed the Piltdown jaw to be a doctored modern ape's.  It is cited here only for the date of the exposure. ↩

“New dates for South African fossils cause contention.”  Creation 44(4):9.  Oct 2022.  An unsigned news item in Creation Ministries International's magazine on Granger and colleagues' 2022 burial dates for Sterkfontein Member 4.  It does not mention the stratigraphic explanation the dating team gave for the older dates.

1. 75a.

   Paragraph 4:  “One wonders how many alleged ages reported in the literature were selected because they reinforced the ideas of the researchers. Redating of fossils is not a rare occurrence. The new dates discussed above illustrate the fickle nature of age estimates obtained from dating methods.” ↩