Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa the Establishment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library] On: 05 November 2014, At: 20:11 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrs20 The establishment of palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China: with especial reference to the remarkably similar roles of Raymond A. Dart and Davidson Black P. V. TOBIAS HON. FRSSAf, FRS a , Q. WANG a b & J. L. CORMACK c a Sterkfontein Research Unit , School of Anatomical Sciences, Medical School, University of the Witwatersrand , 7 York Road, 2193 Parktown, Johannesburg, South Africa E-mail: b Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing, China c Department of Anthropology, H.M. Tory Building , University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H4, Canada Published online: 13 Apr 2010. To cite this article: P. V. TOBIAS HON. FRSSAf, FRS , Q. WANG & J. L. CORMACK (2001) The establishment of palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China: with especial reference to the remarkably similar roles of Raymond A. Dart and Davidson Black, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 56:1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1080/00359190109520451 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00359190109520451 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions The establishment of palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China: with especial reference to the remarkably similar roles of Raymond A. Dart and Davidson Black P.V. TOBIAS HON. FRSSAf, FRS 1, Q. WANG 1,2 & J.L. CORMACK3* 1Sterkfontein Research Unit, School ofAnatomical Sciences, Medical School, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Road, 2193 Parktown, Johannesburg, South Africa, e-mail: [email protected]; 21nstitute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; 3* Department ofAnthropology, H.M. Tory Building, University ofAlberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H4, Canada The discovery of Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child) in South Africa in 1924 and Homo erectus (Peking Man) at Zhoukoudian in China in the 1920s not only historically began the discipline of palaeo anthropology in these two countries, but also greatly influenced the development of this field as a whole. Besides, there are remarkable parallels between the careers of two pioneering palaeo-anthropologists, who were credited with these discoveries, Raymond A. Dart FRSSAf (1893-1988) and Davidson Black FRS (1884 1934). Both men were involved in the discovery and interpretation offossils that seemed to fulfil the require ments of the archaic concept of a "Missing Link". Both were concerned with the building of human origins programmes in their respective adoptive countries. Palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China shares a common root, for both men had sat at the feet of Grafton Elliot Smith in Great Britain. From him both had absorbed an acquaintance with, and passion for, physical anthropology. Like the itinerant proteges of Linnaeus, both men were sent forth by their mentor to far-off places, one to Asia, one to Africa. These never-before explored events not only reveal some very interesting links between these two figures and the countries they adopted, but also enriched the history of palaeo-anthropology as a science. INTRODUCTION Johannesburg, and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleo anthropology (IVPP) within the Chinese Academy of In the first half of the twentieth century, the search for "the Sciences in Beijing, respectively. Personally involved in these Missing Link" in human evolution occupied many scholars. In commemorations, the authors of this paper have taken a closer this quest, the original discoveries and interpretations of two look at the two historic finds, why their histories of rejection and classical fossils - the Taung Child and the Peking Man - were acceptance were so strikingly different, and the men associated seminal (Figure 1). Both of these fossil finds were recognised with them. in the 1920s, and ranked as two of the most important discov A major part of the problem is to examine the question: what eries in the history of the study of human evolution. In particular features were scientists of the first quarter of the twentieth cen they identified South Africa and China as potential and excit tury expecting in their postulated ancestor? How would they ing fossil provinces. As a result of these finds, it may be claimed recognise a - or the - "Missing Link" (to use the language of that the science of palaeo-anthropology as a discipline began in an outdated evolutionary concept)? If we can clarify the main Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 South Africa and China. tenets of the paradigm prevailing in the 1920s, we may then be The fate of the two discoveries of the 1920s differed mark in a position to compare the congruity or incongruity between edly from each other. The specimen from Africa was subject to each of the fossil hominid discoveries and the tenets of the great resistance that lasted for 25 to 30 years. The cranium of mind-set of the time (Tobias, 1996). Peking Man was accepted as that of an ancestral hominid almost immediately, with minimal opposition. It is a question worthy 1) Geographical locality: Asia was considered by most schol of investigation to try to seek the cause for the differential re ars as the cradle of mankind; Darwin's (1871) prediction sponses. Such an enquiry is timely since the year 1999 marked that Africa would prove to have been the birthplace of the 75th anniversary of the discovery of the skull of the Taung humanity had been all but forgotten. Peking Man was in the Child at Buxton Limeworks near Taung in the North West Prov "right" continent; Taung was in the "wrong" one. ince, South Africa, and the 70th anniversary of the discovery of the first cranium of Peking Man at Zhoukoudian (formerly 2) Geocentric biases: P. Bowler (1992) has drawn attention to Chou-kou-tien), China. Celebrations in both countries marked European prejudice against Africa and Africans and he has these two historic events and commemorated the two men most suggested that this bias predisposed them to reject claims on closely associated with them in the School of Anatomical behalf of an African fossil. There was no prejudice, or at Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand Medical School, least not to the same degree, on the part of the West towards * Current address: Anthropology/Archaeology, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Mount Royal College, 4825 Richard Road SW, Calgary, Alberta, T3E 6K6, Canada ISSN 0035 919X - Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Afr. 56 (1). 2001. Pages 1-9. 2 Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa Vol. 56 (1) Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 Figure 1. Taung Child skull (above) and the first cranium of Peking Man (below). 2001 Tobias et al.: Palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China 3 the Orient. If anything there was a semi-mystical belief in ever, applied to Peking Man, or at least not with the same the lure and magic of the Orient. It is not surprising, on this intensity. It was after all an "<anthropus" (or man), not a view, that Peking Man was avidly accepted with alacrity. "<pithecus" (or ape) as Dart named Taung! The geopolitical dice were loaded against the Taung Child. Clearly, viewed in the light of some of the prevailing tenets 3) Priority of encephalisation: The role of the human brain of the paradigm of the 1920s, Taung was a premature discov was deemed to be so important that it was resolutely held by ery in that its implications could not be connected by a series such men as Elliot Smith and Arthur Keith that its enlarge of simple logical steps to canonical, or generally accepted, ment, from a small, approximately ape-sized brain to the knowledge (after Stent, 1972, p. 84). The same could not be said large brains of modern humans, must have been an early of Peking Man: when it was found and described, its time had development in human phylogeny. On this criterion the come. Undoubtedly, this set of factors played a major part in the Taung skull was disqualified, for its brain-size was only very different fates of the two key discoveries. slightly greater than that of today' s chimpanzee. The Peking This brings us to the historical roles of the two men whose Man cranium possessed a much larger brain-size than destiny it was to present and advocate the two fossils to the Australopithecus, though it fell short of the mean value in world.