Is it true that the kneecap of Lucy, the ancient human, was found 30 feet below her in the ground?

Question

If so, what does that mean?

Answer 1

First, let me say that Lucy belongs to the species Australopithecus afarensis, that is, she's not an "ancient human" but an ancient hominid (belongs to the same family as modern man).
The answer to your question is No, that knee joint belonged to another specimen.

The only sites where I've found allusions to this patella (the technical name for the kneecap) issue are anti-evolution sites. And they're purposely misinterpreting something that the original discoverer said; when asked, he said that the knee joint (of A DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL) had been found "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away."

Read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html


So it doesn't mean anything, because it's not true. I recommend these sites for more information about our extinct relatives:

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

The question of how Lucy walked is also very interesting and debated. This is a scientific paper about it:
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~wwang/publications_files/cromptonrh1998.pdf

Answer 2

i don't know about 30 feet below but it was from a different individual. these separate bones were put together so they colud see what a homonid of this age would look like. interestingly she was named lucy as in the background the beatles song lucy in the sky with diamonds was playing on the radio

Answer 3

I don't think so...the only thing about her kneecap that I found was that is was indicative of a transitional species...("the missing link")

Answer 4

Many of her parts were found far away from her. What it means is that there is no way to know that they came from the same organism. In fact, it implies that they did not.