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 "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. What factors in their respective life-histories led them to Homo sapiens. It certainly showed evidence of brain begin their careers as anthropologists? How did their discoveries enlargement well beyond the brain-size of living great apes. lead South Africa and China to appear from under the shadow of the European heritage of prehistory to become two major 4) Piltdown as a competitor: The Piltdown forgery in 1911­ "laboratories" of palaeo-anthropology? Were there common 1912 had provided - conveniently - a skull with a modern, factors in their life-tracks and professional or personal links human-sized brain-case (derived, it was later revealed, from between them? a modern human cranium). Along with an ape-like mandible In examining these questions we soon found not only some and teeth (now known to have belonged to an orang-utan answers to these broad questions in the history of palaeo-anthro­ and to have been carefully doctored so as to avoid readily pology, but also some remarkable parallels between the situa­ giving the game away), the altered and stained calvarial tions of Raymond A. Dart and Davidson Black. Moreover, high­ bones, together with similarly stained stone tools and lights emerged in their respective personal and scientific lives, genuine ancient fossilised mammalian bones, had been which are neither familiar to most scholars in both countries, nor salted into the Piltdown gravels in East Sussex, England, well recorded in the history of palaeo-anthropology as a whole. from which they were recovered between 1912 and 1915. Therefore it is our dual intent here, to record this never-before­ The reconstruction of the bogus fossils, and the high antiq­ explored history and to pay homage to these two pioneers. The uity of the gravel deposit to which the associated artefacts authors ofthis'historical review are Phillip V. Tobias, Raymond and fossil mammals pointed, seemingly provided scholars Dart's successor and the author of Dart, Taung and the "Miss­ of the day with a model of the kind of creature deemed to ing Link" (Tobias, 1984); Qian Wang, a palaeo-anthropologist have been a human ancestor. The Piltdown specimens pro­ from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleo­ vided support for the presumed pre-eminence of the brain in anthropology of China, that Davidson Black helped to create; human evolution (Spencer, 1990; Tobias, 1992). Piltdown and Julie L. Cormack of Canada, who is preparing a new biog­ thus presented an alternative form of "ancestor" to that raphy of the Canadian, Davidson Black. posed by Taung - and moreover one in keeping with the then fashionable notion of the priority of encephalisation. RAYMOND A. DART AND DAVIDSON BLACK For those who accepted Piltdown, the rejection of Taung was unavoidable, whilst the Peking Man cranium of 1929 Raymond A. Dart FRSSAf (1893-1988) (Figure 2) and David­ was not so seriously at variance and was thus acceptable. son Black FRS (1884-1934) (Figure 3) were the respective

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 champions of the Taung Child and the Peking Man. Early in 5) Taungjust a child: It was disturbing to serious scholars (cf. 1925 Dart (1925) named a new genus and species Australopith­ Duckworth, 1925) that the Taung skull belonged to a young ecus africanus, based on the remains of a child's skull and a child. Dart (1925) considered it to be about 6 years old, but natural endocranial cast of it found in 1924 at the Buxton more recent studies on the dental micro-structure have Limeworks, near Taung, Kimberley (now in North West Prov­ pointed to an even younger age of 3 to 4 years. What kind ince), South Africa. Black (1927) recognised a new genus and of creature would Australopithecus africanus have grown species Sinanthropus pekin ensis based on a single tooth found into, had it lived? How many of its supposedly human-like in 1927 at Zhoukoudian, 50 km south-west of Beijing (then features simply reflected its juvenile status? The Peking Peking), China. Both men were convinced that they had found Man cranium, which was found by Pei Wenzhong (1929), the "Missing Link". Despite quick criticism of their seemingly represented an adolescent individual whose cranium could rash proclamations, they eventually gained universal accept­ be accepted as fairly reflecting the adult morphology. Thus ance. Today, Australopithecus and Chinese Homo erectus in respect of individual age, the odds were against the (Peking Man has been taxonomically subsumed into H. erectus acceptance of Taung, though not against that of Peking Man since the 1950s) are firmly established in our evolutionary pre­ of 1929. history. The personal stories of Black and Dart reflect an evolution 6) The role of creationism: Another school of thought, that of and revolution in our historic understanding of and research into creationism, would not tolerate a putative evolutionary link human evolution. In addition to their scientific contributions, between humans and non-human animals, or the very idea there are many historical parallels in their background and train­ of evolution. Dart's small-brained specimen from Taung ing. In this paper, we compare the life histories of Black and was seen by him as coming closer to bridging the gap be­ Dart. We disclose new details on their historical and profes­ tween humans and other primates than anything yet discov­ sional relationship which, in turn, linked Chinese and South ered. Despite its ape-sized brain, it was seen as having taken African palaeo-anthropology during their formative years. decisive steps towards humanity. No such objection, how- 4 Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa Vol. 56 (1)

Figure 2. Raymond Arthur Dart FRSSAf (1893-1988). Figure 3. Davidson Black FRS (1884-1934).

SIMILAR LIFE HISTORIES pologist. Black received a Bachelor of Medicine degree (MB) in 1906 and a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in 1911 from the Univer­ The accompanying Table I shows the similarities of Black' s and sity of Toronto. Dart, following the reverse order of education, Dart's educational and professional life-tracks. Clearly, there are acquired his Master of Science degree in Biology in 1915 from

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 some strong historical parallels between their life histories. To the University of Queensland, and his degree in Medicine in begin, both men were natives of a country under the flag of the 1917 from the University of Sydney. With their degrees in British Commonwealth of Nations, Black from Canada, Dart Medicine, Dart and Black applied their anatomical training to from Australia. Their similar educational training was focused palaeo-anthropological issues, particularly the descriptions of on Medicine and Anatomy and served them well during their Australopithecus and Sinanthropus, respectively. . World War I medical service in Europe. Both men worked In the palaeo-anthropological realm, an international repu­ under Elliot Smith's tutelage, and kept a personal and profes­ tation and, indeed, world fame may sometimes rest on a single sional association with him throughout their lives. Above all, momentous discovery. On the other hand, it may take a series Raymond Dart and Davidson Black persistently defended their of lifelong achievements to attain distinction and global recog­ interpretations of what they were convinced was the "Missing nition, even though no individual major breakthrough has been Link", eventually gaining universal acceptance for their inter­ made. The contributions of Dart and Black belong in the first pretations. They also began the discipline of palaeo-anthropol­ category. ogy by their pioneering research activities into humans' past. However, the discoveries on which Dart and Black con­ Today, both men would be memorialised were there a Pantheon structed their interpretations were not made solely by them­ of Palaeo-anthropology. selves. They did not do field-work or excavation, and the fos­ sils with which their names are associated were found by other RIGHT MEN IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT people. In the case of the Taung Child, there was "a chain of TIME discovery", involving a number of people, including Josephine Salmon (student demonstrator of Anatomy at the University of No-one is born a palaeo-anthropologist. This specialisation the Witwatersrand), M. de Bruyn (a limeworker at the Buxton comes from years of building skills and a knowledge base from Limeworks, Taung), and Robert Burns Young (Professor of different disciplines, including Anatomy, Biology, Evolution­ Geology in the University of the Witwatersrand, who actually ary Biology, etc. Such a broad background constitutes a funda­ selected the Taung hominid skull from among other specimens mental and indispensable part of what makes a palaeo-anthro- to bring back from Buxton to Johannesburg) (Tobias, 1984). 2001 Tobias et al.: Palaeo-anthropoloqy in South Africa and China 5

Table 1. Comparison of life-tracks of Dart and Black.

Raymond Dart (1893-1988) Davidson Black (1884-1934)

1893: Born in Toowong, Brisbane, Australia on 4 February 1884: Born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on 25 July 1915: Master of Science (Biology), University of Queens­ 1906: Bachelor of Medicine, University of Toronto land 1911: Bachelor of Arts, University of Toronto 1917: Bachelor of Medicine, Master of Surgery (Hons.), 1909-1917: Taught Anatomy at Western Reserve University, University of Sydney Cleveland, Ohio 1914-1917: Taught Biology and Anatomy at University of Sydney 1914: Studied under Grafton Elliot Smith in Manchester, 1919-1920, 1921-1922: Taught Anatomy under Grafton Elliot Smith at also under Ariens Kappers at Dutch Central1nstitute University College London. for Brain Research in Amsterdam 1920-1921: As Rockefeller Foundation Fellow, worked under 1917: Served as Captain in the Canadian Army Medical Robert J. Terry at Washington University, St Louis, Corps in World War I Missouri. 1919: Employed by Rockefeller Foundation and trans­ 1917-1919: Served as Captain in the Australian Army Medical ferred to Beijing, China, as a Professor of Neuro­ Corps in World War I anatomy and Embryology at the Peking Union 1923: Transferred to Johannesburg, South Africa, and took Medical College (PUMC), Peking, funded by the up position as Professor and Head of Department of Rockefeller Foundation Anatomy at University of the Witwatersrand 1921: Head of PUMC Department of Anatomy 1923-1958: Professor of Anatomy 1922-1934: Professor of Anatomy 1925: Named Australopithecus africanus 1927: Named Sinanthropus pekinensis 1931: Came to London to defend the Taung Child, and met 1928: European and North American tour with the tooth on frustration which his interpretation was based, and met support 1936: Partially vindicated by first adult skull of Austra­ 1929: Vindicated by the arrival of first Peking Man skull­ lopithecus africanus at Sterkfontein cave recovered cap found by Pei Wenzhong on 2 December 1929 by Robert Broom 1932: Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of London 1950s: Nearly universal acceptance of Australopithecus 1934: Abrupt demise in his PUMC office on 15 March at 1930: Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of South Africa age 49 1988: Demise in Sandton, Johannesburg, on 22 November at age 95

The palaeo-anthropological value of Zhoukoudian, the significance of the Taung Child with its excellently preserved Peking Man site, was recognised by Johan Gunnar Andersson. endocranial cast. As Elliot Smith wrote in 1925 (quoted by Dart The first two tooth fossils of Peking Man were collected by Otto & Craig, 1959), "It was a happy circumstance that such a speci­ Zdansky in 1921 and 1923, and the third tooth (a molar) was men [Taung Child] fell into his hands, because he is one of, at found in situ at Zhoukoudian and was credited to field super­ the most, three or four men in the world who have had experi­ visor Birgir Bohlin (Black, 1927). On 2 December 1929, field ence of investigating such material and appreciating its real supervisor, Pei Wenzhong (1929), found the most spectacular meaning." and definitive of the fossils from Zhoukoudian - a complete Black's knowledge of anatomy made him a natural choice

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 skullcap of Peking Man. It was the shared contributions of all for the identification and description of modern and fossil of these individuals which underlay the researches and bold human remains found around Beijing. As Shapiro (1974) stated, claims of Dart and Black. "His [Black's] outstanding knowledge of dental anatomy that When we consider the taphonomic bases and preservational enabled him to evaluate with precision the significance of the vagaries affecting fossils, the finding of fossils, particularly first two dental fossils was not a matter of chance". In fact, there hominid ones, is a rather rare event; only a few dozen people was no other scholar in Beijing better qualified in Anatomy, and have enjoyed this so-called "Leakey's Luck". Dart and Black surely no one more eager than Davidson Black to participate in did not experience the sufferings that once confronted their the analysis of ancient human remains. It is interesting to note predecessor, Eugene Dubois, during his excavation programme that, before his major descriptive analysis of the Peking Man along Indonesian river terraces some 30 years previously. Louis fossils, Black was involved in the analysis of Neolithic and and Mary Leakey, too, spent decades on painstaking searches Modern Chinese skeletal remains collected by Johan Gunnar and excavations in Kenya and northern Tanzania before the Andersson (Black, 1928). Like other formidable anthropologists skull of Australopithecus (Zinjanthropus) boisei came to light and palaeontologists in Europe and North America, Black be­ in 1959. Although Dart and Black were lucky in terms of the lieved that Asia was the cradle of humankind. It was this belief acquisition of fossils, it was their insights and interpretations of that catalysed his decision to take the position in Beijing. For the fossils sent to them that established the significance of these Black the discovery of Peking Man, with only three teeth at first, discoveries: for this reason they have often been hailed as the and its follow-up, were the fulfilment of many years of schol­ "discoverers". arly preparation and research. Although Dart did not initially display any fervent thrust While the educational training and professional experience towards physical anthropology, he had a rich knowledge of were powerful influences in these men's anthropological con­ human and comparative anatomy, and especially of the brain. tributions, they showed also strong will in the face of severe He had indeed published an article on endocranial casts, those criticism and sometimes scorn. Their original interpretations of the Cetacean, Zeuglodontidae (Dart, 1923). As a result of this were followed by initial denial and scepticism, later a period of specialised interest, Dart was well equipped to recognise the painstaking defence, leading eventually to vindication (Dart & 6 Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa Vol. 56 (1)

GRAFTON ELLIOT SMITH: SOURCE OF ENTHUSIASM

As mentioned above, both Black and Dart once studied or worked with Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, Black in Manchester be­ fore World War I, and Dart in London after the War. Elliot Smith was one of the greatest anatomists and anthropologists of his time. Although many of his anthropological views were later dismissed, his anthropological research had a great influence on Black and Dart. Elliot Smith FRS (1871-1937) (Figure 4) was one of the people who recommended Dart to the University of the Witwatersrand to succeed E.P. Stibbe in the chair of Ana­ tomy, and he was responsible for supporting Black's work in China. Thus, it was not surprising that the story circulated that Elliot Smith had sent Dart to South Africa to find the Taung Child, and Black to China to find the Peking Man (Tobias, 1984)! In fact, Black's transition to human evolution away from his academic training in anatomy, especially neuro-anatomy, was triggered by Elliot Smith. In 1914, on a six-month sabbatical leave from Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Black worked in Elliot Smith's research laboratory at the University of Manchester. His aim was to conduct neurological studies, but as Smith was deeply involved in the analysis and casting ofthe Piltdown skull, Black's interest readily turned to anthropology. In an obituary to Davidson Black, Elliot Smith (1934) wrote, "This work aroused a much greater interest in Dr. Davidson Black than the brains of the Dipnoi [lung fish] in which I was trying to engage his interest, and he at once made himself famil­ iar with all of the materials I had collected, and informed me that that was the kind of work to which he was determined to devote his life. " In June 1914, Black even spent a day at the Piltdown site and found a rhinoceros tooth! By the next decade, he would have settled in China where he was to be responsible for the discovery of the Peking Man. It is safe to say that Black's out­ standing contributions to palaeo-anthropology might never have Figure 4. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith FRS (1871-1937). been made if he had not come under the influence of Elliot Smith at that time (Stopford, 1938). So it was for Raymond Dart. After World War I in 1919, Craig, 1959; Hood, 1964; Shapiro, 1974; Tobias, 1984). Black Elliot Smith moved to University College, London, where he waited less than two years for Sinanthropus pekinensis to be appointed Raymond Dart to a senior demonstrator position in accepted; however, Dart had to wait nearly thirty years. Their the Department of Anatomy. Elliot Smith was still engaged on stories are so well-known as not to require a detailed overview. the Piltdown reconstruction. When he took up the position in

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 Suffice it to say that if Dart had been content to see in the Taung London, Dart had been recently demobilised from war activi­ Child nothing more than signs of the earlier southerly spread of ties. Joseph Shellshear, a friend of both Black and Dart, also some form of African great ape, and if Black had only classi­ entered the department at University College and was later sent fied the Zhoukoudian tooth in the genus Homo, then while they to Hong Kong by Elliot Smith to study Chinese brain ana­ would have been in a comfortable situation, who knows how tomy. In a letter dated 26 October 1922, from Wingate Todd long the Taung Child and the Peking Man might have lain un­ (Black's colleague in Cleveland) to Cowdry (Black's friend appreciated and underestimated? from Toronto and associate in Beijing), Todd made the follow­ Inshort, they were the right men in the right place at the right ing observation: "It is certainly satisfying to have such a good time in terms of their scholarly backgrounds, critical and ana­ set of anatomists in the Orient - Black in Peking, Shellshear in lytical minds, fearless spirits and strong personalities. They Hongkong, and Hunter in Sydney - all interested and to some embodied the essence of shared scientific initiatives across extent inspired by Elliot Smith" (Washington University international boundaries, and by doing so they helped to estab­ Archives). lish palaeo-anthropology as a scientific discipline in its own Yet, anthropology was not Dart's first interest; it appeared right. In this regard a word of caution about Dart may be in only in 1922, as Dart stated in his autobiography, Adventures place. As a young scientist in Sydney and London, Dart had with the Missing Link: "My last year at University College had acquired a reputation as a scientific heretic, given to sweeping been even happier than the previous ones, for I had found an claims. This factor might have been conducive to some of Dart's exciting new interest - Anthropology. Whenever I was free, I contemporaries dismissing his claim about Australopithecus as worked my way through the great comparative collections in the ill-founded and wild. Perhaps, then with this prior reputation, museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. Elliot Smith was the case that Dart was the right man might have been somewhat reconstructing the Piltdown skull and I had gradually been weakened; on the other hand, it needed a man who was willing drawn into this branch of my chief's interest." (Dart & Craig, to take a risk to make some sense of the baffling unlikelihoods 1959). Speaking of early days in Johannesburg, Dart stated, "but that beset the Taung skull. I was unhappy in the first eighteen months (after arrival in 2001 Tobias et al.: Palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China 7

Johannesburg). The abysmal lack of equipment and literature vincing the authorities both in England led by Keith and Elliot forced me to develop an interest in other objects, particularly Smith and in North America led by Ales Hrdlicka - but these anthropology, the one for which Elliot Smith had fired my scholars opposed Dart's interpretations. enthusiasm." Dart's decision to accept the chair of anatomy at Dart travelled to London in February 1931 with the Taung the University of the Witwatersrand was due largely to Elliot specimen (original cranium, mandible and natural endocranial Smith's persuasion. cast). He recalled that "On arrival in London, I had immediately Hence coincidentally, both men absorbed their enthusiasm got in touch with Elliot Smith, Keith and Smith Woodward. for anthropology from Elliot Smith. It is therefore proper to say They were all friendly and hospitable but were much more that from a palaeo-anthropological viewpoint, South Africa and interested in telling me about the recently discovered Peking China shared the same root, a source curiously but indirectly Man remains than in listening to my story. Elliot Smith had a linked to the forged Piltdown remains, an unexpected by­ particular interest in Davidson Black's discovery, for in the product of this infamous hoax (Spencer, 1990; Tobias, 1992). previous August he had visited the Zhoukoudian site at the It is interesting to note that, although Elliot Smith "trained" invitation of the Rockefeller Foundation" (Dart & Craig, 1959). Black and Dart, his reactions to their respective fossil claims Dart's London address on Taung was a disappointing contrast were very different. On one hand, he questioned Dart's analy­ with Elliot Smith's skilful presentation at the same meeting on sis of Australopithecus, while on the other hand, his support for the Peking Man finds. In fact, Elliot Smith also explicitly dis­ Black's interpretation of the Chinese hominid was immediate couraged Dart's publication of a descriptive monograph on the and unqualified. Sir Arthur Keith was even more strongly Taung Child as shown in his letter to Dart dated 25 February opposed to Dart's claims. Together with Keith, Elliot Smith was 1931 that is housed in the archives of the University of the instrumental in getting Black his Fellowship of The Royal Witwatersrand. Upon checking the dental part of Dart's mono­ Society (FRS) of London in 1932. However, with powerful graph, Elliot Smith in his five-page-long letter raised a number opposition arraigned against him, Dart was not elected FRS of questions. Dart's manuscript was never published, save for either at that time, or later when the first author of this paper the dental part which went to a Japanese journal (Dart, 1934). tried to achieve this for Dart. Apart from lingering opposition In 1951, the first author of this article "discovered" the manu­ to Dart's scientific work, especially by S. Zuckerman FRS, the script of Dart's long-forgotten monograph and proposed to Dart proposal that Dart be considered for an FRS in 1970-1972, that he (PVT) would be willing to edit it with a view to its when P.V. Tobias was president of the Royal Society of South belated publication. But Dart declined because much of the con­ Africa, came at a politically inappropriate time, South Africa tent was out of date, and some had been published piecemeal being then in the grip of the apartheid regime and the interna­ (Tobias, 1993). tional academic boycott being already under way. DIFFERENT ENDS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DART AND BLACK Though there are strong similarities in their personal histories, There is no definitive evidence that Dart and Black ever met, the lives of Dart and Black are distinctly different. Although the and yet their historical link to Elliot Smith and Shellshear and, world was startled with the Peking Man finds two years later especially, their common enthusiasm for prehistoric hominids, (1927) than Dart's discovery of Australopithecus (1925), Black would be expected to have established a professional link. Two climbed the international ladder of prestige much sooner. Yet, letters written by Black, while based at the Peking Union Medi­ he was unable to complete the extensive descriptive research cal College, to Dart have recently been found by one of us (QW, that he began on Sinanthropus. On 15 March 1934, he collapsed with the help of Dr Goran Strkalj) in the archives of the Univer­ and died in his laboratory at the Peking Union Medical College. sity of the Witwatersrand. In the first letter dated 19 March He was only 49 years old, the age at which his father had died. 1925, Black wrote: This abrupt end to Black's life dealt a tragic blow to his research

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 "I have been as you may imagine tremendously interested in programme, and heralded the ominous end to the Peking Man the press reports of your find in the Rand area of the fossil which fossils, for in 1941, the fossils that Black had been responsible I understand is to be known as Australopithecus africanus. So for describing and analysing disappeared at the height of the far I have been unable to obtain any news other than very much Japanese occupation of Beijing. This tragedy became personal, garbled press reports and I am wondering if you would be good for Black's own grave was lost in the 1950s during renovations enough to let me have more accurate information on this fossil. and expansion of the Beijing City limits. Eventually, Sinan­ Also if you are making casts may I have the privilege of pur­ thropus pekinens is was sunk taxonomically into the genus chasing one for my department?" Homo and the species erectus (Mayr, 1950). Elliot Smith (1934) Black's second letter of27 July 1925 shows that he, in fact, wrote Black's obituary; then he recommended the German­ did receive Dart's Nature paper on Australopithecus. Albeit American anatomist and anthropologist Franz Weidenreich to brief, this correspondence shows Black's attention to Dart's succeed Black at the PUMC. Weidenreich's comprehensive Taung Child. Black sent copies of his writings on Peking Man descriptive work and published monographs on the Peking Man and others human remains to Dart. However, details of Dart's fossils (e.g. Weidenreich, 1943) and his production ofreplicas, earliest reaction to the Peking Man discoveries are as yet un­ together with Black's anatomical descriptions, became particu­ known. larly valuable, especially after the loss of the original Peking Black apparently never mentioned Dart in his scientific Man fossils. Black's name is scientifically memorialised in the writings, whereas Dart referred to Black's research on Sinan­ species name of the enigmatic fossil ape, Gigantopithecus thropus on many occasions (see Dart & Craig, 1959). In fact, blacki (von Koenigswald, 1935), a giant primate that was once it would be difficult to relate the early history of Austra­ claimed to be a hominid (Weidenreich, 1946; Woo, 1962). For lopithecus, without mentioning Peking Man, for the latter once example, Dart (1960) once discussed this ape's phylogenetic historically eclipsed the former. The relatively immediate position. acceptance of Peking Man and non-acceptance of the Taung Black was born nine years before Dart, who lived almost Child, as we have seen above, were predictable because of the fifty years beyond Black. Dart enjoyed a long life. Although he accepted wisdom of the day. Therefore, Black succeeded in con- failed to get initial enthusiastic support from his colleagues save 8 Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa Vol. 56 (1)

for Robert Broom in his adoptive country, he was accepted in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS South Africa as a major force in anthropology and in 1930, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of South Africa PVT is grateful to the PAST Fund, the Department of Arts, (FRSSAf). Robert Broom's discovery of adult specimens of Culture, Science and Technology of the South African Govern­ Australopithecus at Sterkfontein (from 1936 onward) and ment, the Ford Foundation, the National Research Foundation, Kromdraai (1938) made scientists think more seriously about and the School ofAnatomical Sciences of the University of the the hominid status of Australopithecus. In the 1950s, after the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. QW thanks the National Research exposure of the Piltdown forgery, Australopithecus was finally Foundation of South Africa (NRF) for providing a Postdoctoral almost universally accepted as a significant, basal, small­ Fellowship in the School of Anatomical Sciences at the Univer­ brained hominid (Tobias, 1984). Dart was honoured with sity of the Witwatersrand under the sponsorship of the first numerous awards and his stand on Australopithecus was belat­ author (PVT), which has made it possible for him to take part edy vindicated. He died in Sandton, Johannesburg, on 22 No­ in exciting communication between China and South Africa. vember 1988, at the age of 95 (Tobias, 1989). PVT and QW would also like to thank Mr Marius Coetzee for the use of the archives at the University of the Witwatersrand, HOMETOWNS OF TAUNG CHILD AND PEKING MAN Johannesburg, Mr Peter Faugust for preparing photographs, and Mrs Li Sun, Dr Goran Strkalj, Mrs Chong Mee Ford and Mrs Australopithecus and Sinanthropus, as individual fossil discov­ Heather White for their valuable help. JLC would like to eries, expanded our understanding of human prehistory but also acknowledge, with sincere thanks, the continued support of the gave notice of the potential wealth of anthropological informa­ Black Family who have allowed access to their personal fam­ tion in South Africa and China. The fundamental significance ily archives. She would also like to acknowledge the Rocke­ of these fossils in hominid phylogeny is universally accepted feller Archive Centre, the University of Toronto, Washington today. In 1990, Zhoukoudian, the Peking Man Site, was made University, and her colleague, M. Laframboise. We also sin­ a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The first author was appointed cerely thank two referees, Dr K.L. Kuykendall and Dr R.R. a member of the International Technical Committee for the Ackermann, for their helpful suggestions. Project on Rehabilitation, Protection and Conservation of Zhoukoudian, the Peking Man World Heritage Site, invited by REFERENCES UNESCO in 1996. In 1999, Sterkfontein, the major Plio­ Pleistocene site of Australopithecus africanus, together with BLACK, D. 1927. On a lower molar hominid tooth from the Chou Kou Tien those in its vicinity (Swartkrans, Kromdraai, etc.) were also deposit. Palaeontologica Sinica Series D, 7(1): 1-28. given UNESCO World Heritage Site status. The status of World BLACK, D. 1928. A study of Kansu and Honan Aeneolithic skulls and specimens from later Kansu prehistoric sites in comparison with north Heritage Site identifies localities of unique natural or cultural China and other recent crania. Part 1. On measurement and identifica­ beauty and of outstanding scientific significance. Surprisingly, tion. Palaeontologia Sinica, Geological Survey of China Series D, however, Taung has yielded no more Australopithecus fossils 6(1): 1-83. until the present, despite excavations by Peabody halfa century BLACK, D. 1931. On an adolescent skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis in ago and by Tobias, Toussaint and McKee in the 1980s and comparison with an adult of the same species and with other hominid 1990s (McKee & Tobias, 1994). skulls recent and fossil. Palaeontologia Sinica Series D, 7(2): 1-144. BOWLER, P. 1992. Commentary on Piltdown: the case against Keith. Cur­ Since the initial work at Zhoukoudian began in 1921, there rent Anthropology 33: 260-261. have been found in China nearly 70 palaeo-anthropological sites CLARKE, RJ. 1998. First ever discovery of a well-preserved skull and as­ yielding hominid fossils and over 1000 archaeological sites sociated skeleton of Australopithecus. South African Journal of yielding stone tools (Wu & Poirier, 1995; Wang & Tobias, Science 94: 460- 463. 2000). The Cenozoic Research Laboratory created by Davidson DART, RA.1923. The brain of the Zeuglodontidae (Cetacea). Proceedings Black and Wong Wenhao, then Director of the Geological Sur­ ofthe Zoological Society ofLondon (1923): 615-654. DART, R.A. 1925. Australopithecus africanus, the man-ape of South

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014 vey of China, is today recognised as the respected and prestige­ Africa. Nature 115: 195-199. bearing central agency for human evolutionary studies in China DART, RA. 1934. Dentition of Australopithecus africanus. Folia Anatom­ (Wang & Sun, 2000). It is now called the Institute of Vertebrate ica Japonica 12: 207-221. Paleontology and Paleo anthropology (lVPP). Since the initial DART, R.A. 1960. The status of Gigantopithecus. Anthropologischer finds at the Taung quarry in 1924, nine to ten additional South Anzeiger 24: 139-145. African sites have yielded early hominid fossils, while there are DART, RA. & CRAIG, D. 1959. Adventures with the Missing Link. London, numerous later hominid fossil sites and hundreds of archaeo­ Hamish Hamilton. DARWIN, C.R. 1871. The Descent ofMan. London, John Murray. logical sites (Tobias & Baker, 1994). In 1997, an australopith­ DUCKWORTH, W.L.H. 1925. The fossil anthropoid ape from Taungs. Nature ecine skeleton dated to 3.33 million years old was found in 115: 236. Sterkfontein Member 2 (Clarke, 1998). Dart and his successor, HOOD, D. 1964. Davidson Black, a Biography. Toronto, University of Tobias, jointly turned the School of Anatomical Sciences at the Toronto Press. University of the Witwatersrand Medical School into one of the KOENIGSWALD, G.H.R von. 1935. Eine fossile Saugetierfauna mit Simia major palaeo-anthropological research and teaching organisa­ aus Sudchina. Proceedings Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Amsterdam 38: 872-879. tions in the world. MAYR, E. 1950.Taxonomic categories in fossil hominids. Cold Spring Discoveries and research continue. South Africa has become Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 15: 109-118. a centre for research into Australopithecus and early species of MCKEE, J.K. & TOBIAS, P.V. 1994. Taung stratigraphy and taphonomy: Homo. China has become a centre for research into Homo preliminary results based on the 1988-93 excavations. South African erectus and fossils representing a transition into modern Journal ofScience 90: 233-235. humans, as well as the home of Gigantopithecus. In the 1990s, PEl, W.e. 1929. An account of the discovery of an adult Sinanthropus skull in the Chou- K'ou-Tien deposit. Geological Society of China reciprocal visits between leading scholars in these two coun­ Bulletin 8: 203-250. tries, Rukang Wu and Xinzhi Wu of China and Phillip Tobias SHAPIRO, H.L. 1974. Peking Man. New York, Simon and Schuster. of South Africa, helped to cultivate close links between these SMITH, G.E. 1934. Obituary: Prof. Davidson Black, FRS. Nature 133: 521­ two palaeo-anthropological provinces (Wang & Sun, 2001). 522. 2001 Tobias et al.: Palaeo-anthropology in South Africa and China 9

SPENCER, F. 1990. Piltdown: a Scientific Forgery. London and New York, TOBIAS, P.Y. & BAKER, G. 1994. Palaeo-anthropology in South Africa. Natural History Museum Publications and Oxford University Press. South African Journal ofScience 90: 203-204. STENT, G.S. 1972. Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. WANG, Q. & SUN, L. 2000. Eightieth year of Peking Man - current status of Scientific American 228: 84-93. Peking Man and Zhoukoudian site, Anthropological Review 63: 19-30. STOPFORD, J.S.B. 1938. The Manchester period. In Dawson, W.R. (Ed.) Sir WANG, Q. & SUN, L. 2001. Shaking hands across time and space: Phillip Grafton Elliot Smith, a Biographical Record by his Colleagues. Lon­ Y. Tobias's little known link with Peking Man. Adler Museum Bulle­ don, Jonathan Cape. pp. 151-165. tin 27: 16-19. TOBIAS, P.Y. 1984. Dart, Taung and the "Missing Link". Johannesburg, WANG, Q. & TOBIAS, P.Y. 2000. Recent advances in Chinese palaeo­ Witwatersrand University Press for the Institute for the Study of Man anthropology. South African Journal ofScience 96: 463-466. in Africa. WEIDENREICH, F. 1943. The skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: a compara­ TOBIAS, P.Y. 1989. Raymond Arthur Dart (1893-1988). Nature 337: 211. tive study on a primitive hominid skull. Palaeontologia Sinica New TOBIAS, P.Y. 1992. The Piltdown hoax and human evolution: new light on Series D, 10: 1-484. the impact of Sir Arthur Keith, Ian Langham, Raymond Dart and WEIDENREICH, F. 1946. Apes, Giants and Men. Chicago, University of Australopithecus. The John Irvine Hunter Memorial Lecture, Univer­ Chicago Press. sity of Sydney, Australia: 1-39. Woo, J.K. 1962. The mandible and dentition of Gigantopithecus. Palae­ TOBIAS, P.Y. 1993. Raymond Dart's unpublished memoir on Taung. South ontologia Sinica New Series D, 11: 1-94. African Journal ofScience 89: 311-312. Wu, X. & POIRIER, F.E. 1995. Human Evolution in China - A Morph­ TOBIAS, P.Y. 1996. Premature discoveries in science with special reference ometric Description ofFossils and Review ofSites. New York, Oxford to Australopithecus and Homo habilis. Proceedings of the American University Press. Philosophical Society 140: 49-64. Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:11 05 November 2014