CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 15, No. 4, December 1974 ) 1974 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for AnthropologicalResearch RECENT THINKING ON HUMAN EVOLUTION Paleoecology of South African Australopithecines:Taung Revisited' byKarl W. Butzer INTRODUCTION to a gracilelineage of earlyhominids. Almost a half-century later, the continuingspate of hominid discoveriesin East The Taung2 skull was the first australopithecine fossil Africa and the problems they have generated lend ever discovered and, as Australopithecusafricanus, gave its name greater pertinence to the South African type fossils and type sites.3 Yet the key Taung specimen has not been 'The field and laboratorystudies reflectedin this paper were published in full, and the geological context has been made possible by support from the Wenner-Gren Foundation establishedin a broad way only. The stereotypedgeneral- (grant-in-aid2344), the National Science Foundation (grant GS- izations about Taung found in the secondary literature 3013 to R. G. Klein and K. W. Butzer), and the Anthropology have remained unchanged for several decades. In fact, and Geography Departments of the Universityof Chicago. D. M. Helgren (Toronto) assisted with the laboratoryanalyses and however, the stratigraphicage commonlyassigned to the provided substantialnew informationand useful criticismon the Taung site must be challenged, thus raising new questions basis of his ongoing field research. Dr. and Mrs. G. J. Fock about the positionof theTaung childin hominidphylogeny. (McGregor Memorial Museum, Kimberley)and Mr. and Mrs. L. Ultimatelyperhaps of greater importance than relative Matter (Ulco) generouslyprovided the hospitality,assistance, and encouragement that made the fieldworkpossible. Maps and dia- age and basic taxonomyare the ecological implicationsof grams were drawn by C. Mueller-Wille (Chicago). The X-ray the Taung site, located at the highest latitude (27?32'S) diffractogramswere run and interpreted by Romano Rinaldi of any australopithecinesite and on the very edge of the (Chicago), while B. E. Bowen and Thure Cerling (Iowa State) Kalahari Desert. Here, too, recent work indicates a need examined four of the sand samples by electron microscope. The Grootkloofsnails were identifiedand commented on by A. Zilch for fundamental revision of prevailing concepts. Such a (Forschungs-InstitutSenckenberg), while C 14 determinationswere revisionbecomes particularlyurgent at a timewhen paleo- promptlyprovided by Robert Stuckenrath(Smithsonian Institu- biological and paleobehavioral theorists have begun to tion). P. V. Tobias and M. E. Marker (Witwatersrand)offered explore a number of ecological hypothesesto extensive and detailed suggestions on an interim draft of the help explain diverse aspects of early hominid differentiationor the specificevolution of the hominine line. Both dietary and locomotory adaptations play a central role in several of KARL W. BUTZER is Professorof Anthropologyand Geography these hypotheses. at the Universityof Chicago (Chicago, Ill. 60637, U.S.A.). Born in 1934, he was educated at McGill University(B.Sc., 1954; Whereas the fossilsthemselves are at long last proving M.Sc., 1955) and at RheinischeFriedrich-Wilhelms-Universitait, capable of yieldingdirect information on masticatoryactivi- Bonn (Dr.rer.nat., 1957). He was Assistant and Associate ties and locomotorymechanisms, environmental informa- Professorof Geography at the Universityof Wisconsin from 1959 to 1966. He has done extensivefieldwork in Egypt,Spain, Ethiopia, and South Africa. His research interestsare Pleisto- manuscript.I appreciate discussions with C. K. Brain (Transvaal cene environmentsand stratigraphy,ecological adaptations of Museum), R. Liversidge (McGregor Memorial Museum, Kimber- early hominids, and prehistoricman-land rel.Itionships.He is ley), R. G. Klein (Universityof Washington),and D. C. Johanson author or co-author of Die NaturlandschaftAgyptens (Mainz, (Case Western), as well as the unforgettableintroduction to the 1959); QuaternaryStratigraphy and Climatein theNear East (Bonn, Taung juvenile given me by Phillip Tobias in 1969. 1968); Environmentand Archeology(Chicago: Aldine, 1964; 2Taung is Tswana for 'place of the lion,' composed of tau 'lion' Chicago: Aldine-Atherton/London:Methuen, 1971); Desertand and ng 'place of,' as I am informed by D. T. Cole and P. V. Riverin Nubia (Madison: Universityof WisconsinPress, 1968); Tobias. It also means 'place of Tau,' a legendary 18th-century and RecentHistory of an EthiopianDelta (Universityof Chicago chief (Breutz 1968:15). Since the totem of the local Tlhaping Department of Geography, 1971). He is co-editor of Afterthe tribe is the kudu (Breutz 1968:99), the latter interpretationis Australopithecines(The Hague: Mouton, in press). probably correct. The common spelling Ta'ung is therefore as The present paper, submittedin final form 15 iII 73, was incorrectas the obsolete toponymTaungs. sent for comment,along withthe papers of Tuttle, Todd and 3 As became particularlyapparent at the Wenner-GrenFounda- Blumenberg, and Porshnev that follow, to 50 scholars. The tion workshop "Fossil Hominids fromEast Rudolf, Kenya," orga- responses to all the papers are printedbelow and are followed nized by G. LI. Isaac and R. E. Leakey, New York, February 9, by renlies fromthe authors 1973. See also Tobias (1972). Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974 367 This content downloaded from 128.62.59.252 on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:58:15 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions tion has traditionallybeen based on associated faunal Norlim.5This specimen was to be published by Dart (1926) assemblages and sedimentinterpretation. Realistic ecologi- as Australopithecusafricanus. The Buxton-Norlimlime pre- cal models will ultimatelyneed to be the product of an cipitates-"calc-tufas" or "travertines"6-from which the interdisciplinarysynthesis, employing the input of critically fossil was derived had first been briefly described by evaluated data processed by the diverse methodologies of Wybergh (1920). In view of the interestdue to the aus- the broad spectrumof scientistswith paleoanthropological tralopithecinediscovery, Young subsequentlyexamined a focus or avocation. Thus far there has probably been a number of tufas at and near Buxton-Norlim,describing littletoo much assertionof apparent interrelationshipsthat occurrences, recognizing but a single generation of tufa are based on an incompleteappreciation of the complexity precipitates,discussing their mode of origin (in part by and conditionaltestimony of data fromunfamiliar subdisci- analogy to the Brazilian study of Branner [1911]), and plines. Despite the continuing compartmentalizationof inferringa single cycle of accentuated fluvialactivity (with researchinstitutions and fundingagencies, individuals must deposition of tufas interbedded with coarse detritus),fol- striveto communicateto the degree thatthey can appreciate lowed by uninterrupted tufa accretion, and ultimately that no data of any category is whollyunequivocal. Thus fluvialerosion. Young also provided a pertinentdescription a late Tertiaryfaunal assemblage cannot be simplyequated of the cave fillin which the australopithecinewas found. witha specificvegetation and ecozone, nor can a sediment A detailed study of the Buxton-Norlimarea was finally necessarilyyield a reliable prognosis on either macro- or undertakenin 1948-49 by Peabody (1954), who recognized microdepositionalenvironments. at least four major generationsof tufas or travertinesand No paleoecological generalizations-as opposed to limited establisheda complex geomorphologic sequence. Peabody site-specificinferences-relevant to Tertiary and Pleisto- demonstrated facies patterning within the older tufas, cene hominids are established beyond reasonable doubt. mapped the occurrences at approximately 1:10,000, and No matter how quantitativea contributingsubdiscipline reconstructedthe appearance of the area priorto quarrying may aspire to be, the compendium of paleoanthropological by means of a panorama. A varietyof fossiliferousassem- sciences is necessarily an inexact one by virtue of the blages and archeological occurrences were collected, al- multivariatecharacter of interactingorganic and inorganic thoughwith exception of the australopithecinecave proper phenomena in nature. As scientistswe remain obligated (Cooke 1963; also Wells 1969 and Freedman and Stenhouse to continue to question the assumptions underlying our 1972), the faunas have been incompletelypublished, and methodologies,and search for new ways to achieve fuller only one archeological site (Witkrans; see Peabody 1954) and more accurate resolution.The techniquesof the behav- has been systematicallyanalyzed (Clark 1971). Peabody ioral, biological, or geological subdisciplines relevant to suggesteda climaticinterpretation for Buxton-Norlimand anthropologyare never infallibleand must thereforere- other nearby tufas and then offered climato-stratigraphic main flexible. Similarly,the body of general information correlationswith the controversialVaal River sequence. must never be elevated to the status of dogma, whether Despite the valuable and fundamental work of Young it be from our own or a cognate subdiscipline with data and Peabody, both the stratigraphicage and paleoclimatic we are less able to evaluate critically. implicationsof the older Buxton-Norlimdeposits remain The potentialcontributions of the earth sciences to both uncertain (see also Cooke 1967:176). It requires little data input and synthesisin paleoanthropologyare consid- emphasisthat this