Przegląd Antropologiczny � Anthropological Review • Vol. 63 (2000)

Becoming a hominid: Notes on the early taxonomy ofAustralopithecus

Goran ŠtrkaljDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd.,Parktown 2193, South Africa, E-mail 055gor@chiron.wits.ac.za

ABSTRACT The paper attempts to trace the first suggestions that the Austra-lopithecus should be classified as a hominid. It would appear that the first classi-fication of Australopithecus as a member of the family Hominidae is to be foundin the works of the German anthropologist Paul Adloff and the American scien-tist Dudley J. Morton. Adloff�s and especially Morton�s views, although largelyneglected at the time when they were first articulated, represent the first stepstowards the modern position on the taxonomy of Australopithecus.KEY WORDS Taung, Australopithecus, Hominidae, Paul Adloff, Dudley J. MortonPrz. Antropol. – Anthropol. Rev. (2000), vol. 63, pp. 31�38, Fig. 1. ISBN 83-86969-60-1,ISSN 0033-2003

Introduction

Exactly seventy-five years ago, inFebruary 1925, one of the most importantdiscoveries in the history of paleoanthro-pology was announced to the scientificworld and to the general public. It wasthe discovery of the Taung fossil, whichconsisted of an incomplete skull with awell-preserved mandible, and a naturalendocranial cast of a juvenile individual.The fossil was found in a limestone minenear Taung, a village situated in whatis now the Northwest Province of theRepublic of South Africa. It was sent forscientific examination to RaymondA. Dart, Australian-born South Africanscientist, who was then the head of the

Department of Anatomy at the Universityof the Witwatersrand.

Dart interpreted the fossil as an apewith numerous �humanoid� characters.He assumed it to be a �missing link� � abeing which belonged to the group whichrepresented the evolutionary sequencebetween apes and humans � and createdfor it a new genus and species which hecalled Australopithecus africanus. Thisinterpretation was, as is well known,rejected by the majority of the anthropo-logical authorities of the day, most ofwhom saw in Australopithecus a newspecies of fossil ape, closely allied toAfrican apes. Dart and a few partial orfull early converts to his views such as R.Broom, W. J. Sollas, W. K. Gregory and

Goran �trkalj32

Fig. 1. Raymond Dart (1925) with the Taung skull

G. Elliot-Smith, thought of Australopi-thecus as a possible ancestor, or as a be-ing closely allied to the modern ancestorof modern humans, but were not prepared(contrary to the position of contemporarypaleoanthropology) to classify it in thefamily Hominidae. DART himself, crea-ted a new family for Australopithecuswhich he named in his first paper [1925]�Homo-simiadae�, or �man-apes�. He, andmost of those who accepted his ideas,usually referred to Australopithecus as ahighly �progressed� ape, a being �on itsway� to a fully human status. In thispaper, an attempt will be made to tracethe first suggestions that the Australopi-thecus should be classified as a hominid.

P. Adloff and R. Broom

In a detailed historical analysis of theTaung discovery TOBIAS [1984] empha-

sised that Dart emphatically opposed theview that Australopithecus was a homi-nid species. He suggested that the first toclassify the new species as such wasBroom, who was to play a crucial role inthe later acceptance of Dart�s interpreta-tion of australopithecines. According toTobias, Broom did this in his 1933 clas-sic The Coming of Man: Was it Accidentor Design? TOBIAS [1998: p. 286] citesthe following passage from BROOM�Sbook [1933: p. 143] as evidence: �BeforeAustralopithecus was discovered some ofus believed that the ancestor of manwould be found in an anthropoid apewhich had left the forest and taken toliving on the plains and among the rocks;and here we have just such a form. Fur-ther, it shows a number of almost unex-pected human characters. Personally, Ibelieved that Australopithecus is verynear to the human ancestor, and if not themember of the genus from which hesprang at least the member of the family.Certainly it is not at all nearly allied tochimpanzee.�

However, it would appear that a dif-ferent interpretation of this quotation ispossible. It might be argued that Broomdid not intend to say that Australopi-thecus belongs to the hominid family, butto the family form which the hominidsevolved. This is in line with Dart�s origi-nal view � that Australopithecus belongsto the family �Homo-simiadae�, whichwas ancestral to hominids. All ofBroom�s subsequent works could becited in favor of this interpretation, be-cause he does not refer to Australopi-thecus as a hominid in any of them[REED 1983]. In his last book Findingthe Missing Link, he noted: �It seemsa matter of little moment whether callthe Australopithecids, apes, ape-man, or

Becoming a hominid: Notes on the early taxonomy of Australopithecus 33

men� [BROOM 1950: p. 82]. As a conse-quence he was quite negligent as regardstaxonomy and usually used, as did mostof his contemporaries, elusive and impre-cise vernaculars (�man-ape�, �ape-man�,�nearly man�, etc.), which only made theexisting taxonomic confusion and mis-understandings among anthropologistsgreater [LE GROS CLARK 1969; REED1983].

BROOM [1950], as well as Dart [DART& CRAIG 1959], pointed at German an-thropologist Paul Adloff as the one whowent so far as to classify Australopi-thecus as a hominid in his 1932 paper. Inthis paper ADLOFF [1932] published theresults of his study of the dentition of theTaung specimen. In 1929, Dart had man-aged to separate the lower and upper jawsof which casts were made, and distrib-uted to dental experts, one of them beingKönigsberg Professor � P. Adloff. Ac-cording to Adloff, the teeth of the Taungspecimen were undoubtedly that of ahominid, and Australopithecus should,therefore, be classified as such. ADLOFF[1932: p. 154] concluded: �Das Gebissvon Australopithecus ist aber rein mesch-lich und lasst den Schluss zu, dass Aus-tralopithecus kein Anthropoide, sondernein Hominide ist�. Dart later commentedon Adloff�s conclusion in the followingmanner: �Professor T. (sic) Adloff inGermany was even more emphatic (thanGregory, see below). He stated that fromhis knowledge of the teeth of anthropoidshe did not have the slightest hesitation inexcluding Australopithecus form theanthropoids and claiming it is a genuinehominid (echte Hominide)� [DART &CRAIG 1959: p. 54]. Other scientist didnot agree with Adloff.

Austrian anthropologist � W. Abel,who studied the casts of Australopithecus

at the same time, came to a completelydifferent conclusion. In his monographpublished in early 1930s, after a thoroughstudy of the endocast, face and teeth,ABEL [1931] concluded that Australo-pithecus was an ape closely related toancestral gorilla. W. K. Gregory, anotherprominent anthropologist and dental ex-pert, was closer to Adloff in his findings.He concurred with Dart�s original inter-pretation and emphasised: �if Australo-pithecus is not literally a missing linkbetween the older dryopithecoid groupand primitive man, what conceivablecombination of ape and human characterswould ever be admitted as such?�[GREGORY 1930: p. 650]. However, hewas still not prepared to classify Austra-lopithecus within the hominid family.

Three papers, published in 1939 byGregory and his colleague from theAmerican Museum � M. Hellman, areoften referred to as the works in whichthey classified australopithecines in thehominid family (see, e.g., TATTERSALL[1995]). These papers [GREGORY &HELLMAN 1939a,b,c] were written aftertheir scientific excursion to South Africa,during which they examined the dentalmaterial of the australopithecines whichhad been recently discovered by Broom.And although the authors classified austra-lopithecines in the subfamily Australo-pithecinae, they did not discuss whetherthese fossils belong to the family Homi-nidae. The fact that they were still notready to accept their hominid status issuggested in the term �man-ape� whichthey used in the titles of all three articlesas a synonym for australopithecines.

It appears, therefore, that Adloff wasalone in his conclusions. At that time, inearly 1930s, they did not provoke anyreaction. As REED [1983: p. 19] noted:

Goran �trkalj34

�his (Adloff�s) view was extreme for thetime, and not even Dart and Broom oranyone else for several years showedsuch courage, but instead continued toregard Australopithecus as an �advanced�ape.�

D. J. Morton

It would appear, however, that thefirst suggestion, although only implicit,that Australopithecus should be classifiedamong hominids is to be found evenearlier, in the work of American scientistDudley J. Morton. The fact that Mortonwas American is by no means fortuitous.Although some of the leading figures ofAmerican physical anthropology such asHooton and Osborn dismissed Dart�sclaims, American anthropologists weregenerally more favorably orientated con-cerning Dart�s interpretation of the Taungfossil than their European counterparts.As BOAZ [1981: p. 399] noted:�American anthropologists, perhaps be-cause of their relatively sceptical view ofPiltdown Man and the sequence of mor-phological changes it implied, were morereceptive to Australopithecus than mostEuropean, particularly English andFrench, anthropologists.� Morton was atthat time (in 1927) affiliated to Yale Uni-versity�s Department of Surgery as wellas to the American Museum of NaturalHistory. He was interested in the evolu-tion of upright posture and bipedal loco-motion and had published several re-markable papers on this subject duringthe 1920s [MORTON 1922, 1924a,b,1926a,b, 1927]. Bearing in mind thescarcity of fossils at the beginning of thecentury, and especially the small numberof preserved bones relevant to the studyof locomotion (which forced him to rely

mainly on comparative anatomy of livingprimates), one can only admire the accu-racy of Morton�s inferences. Indeed, hisinsights were highly prized long aftertheir initial publication (see, e.g., TOBIAS[1982]).

In one of the above mentioned papers,published only two years after the an-nouncement of Dart�s discovery,MORTON [1927] involved the Taungfossil in his discourse. Although Austra-lopithecus is not directly mentioned inthe text (as, indeed, some other importantfossil hominids are not) it is present inthe illustration which shows the primatephylogenetic tree. This phylogenetic treehad been adopted, with significantchanges, from one of Gregory�s (whowas also working in the American Mu-seum of the Natural History at that time)earlier papers [GREGORY 1916]. Just likeGregory, and contrary to the view ofanother great scientist from the AmericanMuseum � H. F. Osborn, Morton thoughtthat great apes and humans are closelyrelated, and that they both stem from theDryopithecinae subfamily. From theDryopithecinae group, argued Morton,evolved three lines of modern great apes(leading to modern gorillas, chimpanzeesand orangutans). Within the human lineMORTON [1927] listed the followingfossils (from the oldest to the youngest):Taung, Pithecanthropus, Piltdown, Hei-delberg, and Neanderthals (these are thenames he used). It is obvious, therefore,that Morton, like Dart, and a few propo-nents of his thesis, assumed Australo-pithecus to be an ancestor or closely al-lied to the ancestor of modern humans.Morton�s view on the exact taxonomicposition of the Australopithecus, and allthe others leading to modern humans,becomes obvious in the concluding

Becoming a hominid: Notes on the early taxonomy of Australopithecus 35

chapters of the 1927 paper. To under-stand it, it is necessary to outline some ofthe basic propositions of Morton�s under-standing of human evolution.

Unlike many of his contemporariesMorton believed in mosaic evolution,that is, he maintained that some bodyparts became humanized earlier thanothers. Reluctance to accept mosaicevolution in the 1920s has been some-times cited as one of the reasons for theinitial rejection of Dart�s claims on thenature of Taung fossil [TOBIAS 1982;WASHBURN 1985]. Furthermore, Morton,also in contradistinction to the manyanthropological authorities of the era,argued that erect bipedalism had evolvedfirst and that the system of locomotionhad been the first to be transformed inhuman direction while other body parts,including the big brain, were to evolvelater. The evolution of erect bipedalism,according to Morton, marked the appear-ance of hominid line. In contrast, otheranthropologists who accepted that up-right posture might have developed earlyin human evolution believed that it was aprimitive trait which characterized com-mon ancestor of apes and humans[BOWLER 1986]. It was generally be-lieved that the big brain was a characterwhich distinguished hominids from theirape relatives, that it had evolved early inhuman evolution and, accordingly, thatany relatively small-brained creature,such as the Taung individual, could notbe counted as hominid, no matter whatother morphological features characteri-zed it. Indeed, it would appear that thesmall brain was the main reason forDart�s decision not to include Australo-pithecus in the hominid family. Dartnoted that it is evident �that a creaturewith anthropoid brain capacity, and

lacking the distinctive, localized temporalexpansion which appear to be concomi-tant with and necessary to articulate man,is no true man� [DART 1925: p. 198]. AsTOBIAS [1998: p. 285] recently observed:�Although the child wore some of theclothing which was de rigeur amongmembers of the hominid club, its hat-sizewas far too small for the child to be al-lowed into that august company.� Thefixation of anthropologists with the skulland brain and its importance in the studyof human evolution have had a long his-tory and can be traced back in pre-Darwinian era. STEPAN [1982] sees se-veral different reasons for this, probablythe most important being that the brain is�the organ of mind�, and mind waslooked upon, from ancient times, as thedifferentia specifica which distinguisheshumans from other living beings. Conse-quently, the size of the brain became themeasure of humanity.

Returning to the problem of classifi-cation, the concluding chapters ofMORTON�S [1927] paper are of particularimportance. Morton suggested that, inline with his views on human evolution,the definition of the genus Homo shouldbe revised and made more inclusive. Asbipedalism was the first human charac-teristic to develop (the one which signi-fied a separation from the ape line), itappeared reasonable, to Morton, to in-clude all bipedal species, within the lineleading to modern humans, in the genusHomo. He noted in that respect:�According to the present interpretation,the grosser anatomical characteristics ofmankind were acquired long before hu-man psychological qualifications hadbeen attained� It would seem that thegeneric term �Homo� might be broadenedto conform with a morphological classi-

Goran �trkalj36

fication as to skeletal structure and stat-ure. It could than include to a very con-siderable extent those countless genera-tions of prehistoric human ancestrywhich, having acquired almost humanproportions, were slowly and laboriouslyaccumulating the mental equipment thatwas to be the greatest heritage of man-kind� [MORTON 1927: p. 201]. Morton,therefore, went much further than anyoneat that time. He not only included Austra-lopithecus in the hominid family, but alsoimplied that it should be classified as oneof the Homo species. This thesis contra-dicted the prevailing view of the era,which was outlined above, and, asBOWLER [1986: p. 73] noted, �hardlyanyone in the interwar years was pre-pared to accept Morton�s position.�

Today, however, Morton�s views donot look that odd. Australopithecineshave long been counted as members ofthe hominid family. They were even,when the Neo-Darwinian paradigm en-tered paleoanthropology, reclassified asHomo by MAYR [1950]. AlthoughMayr�s suggestion was not accepted, it isinteresting to note that nowadays somescientists are inclined to go even furtherthan Morton and Mayr in making thetaxon Homo more inclusive. Relying ondata from the field of molecular biologywhich implies an extremely close rela-tionship between apes and humans, theysuggest that African apes � chimpanzeeand gorilla � should be included in thegenus Homo (see, e.g., WATSON et al.[1998]).

Conclusions

TOBIAS [1982: p. 7] once observedthat �Dart�s great contribution was that�he forced the world of palaeo-

anthropology to appreciate that there hadindeed been, at one time, small brainedbut upright walking members of the fam-ily of man� Dart�s analysis of the Taungskull compelled scientists to another re-alization, namely that not all parts of theputative ancestor�s bodies had becomehominized or man-like at the same rate ortime�. Hence, the significance of D.J.Morton�s work lies, among other things,in the fact that he arrived at the similarconclusions at the same time as Dart, ifnot before him. Morton�s theoreticalassumptions were to be corroborated bylater fossil finds, and above all by subse-quent discoveries of other australopithe-cine remains. The natural consequence ofhis views on human evolution was theinclusion of Australopithecus into humangroup.

In some recent works TOBIAS [1996,1998] noted that Stent�s concept of pre-mature discovery can be a useful tool ofhistorical analysis in paleoanthropologyin general, and in the research on theTaung discovery in particular. STENT[1972: p. 84] defined premature discove-ry as one whose implications �cannot beconnected by a series of simple logicalsteps to canonical, or generally acceptedknowledge.� Dart�s discovery of Austra-lopithecus africanus, argued Tobias, is atypical example of premature discovery,as Dart�s interpretation was not compati-ble with the then prevailing theoreticalframework. It should be noted, however,that there was a theoretical positionwithin which Dart�s claims were applica-ble: the one that was devised by Morton.Indeed, when some notable experts, suchas Le Gros Clark, decided to acceptDart�s views in the period after the Se-cond World War they first had to changetheir understanding of human evolution

Becoming a hominid: Notes on the early taxonomy of Australopithecus 37

along the lines developed by Morton[BOWLER 1986]. Morton�s position, fur-thermore, has its relevance even in thecontext of modern paleoanthropology.However, his views on human evolution,phylogeny, and taxonomy have beenneglected even more thoroughly thanDart�s interpretation of the Taung fossil.Nevertheless, ideas such as Morton�s andAdloff�s, which from being the views ofminority through the strange dialecticsof scientific progress were to became thatof majority, contributed towards the dis-solution of the old view and the gradualacceptance of Australopithecus as a pos-sible human ancestor, and eventually as amember of the hominid family, if not ofthe genus Homo.

Acknowledgements

I thank Professor Phillip V. Tobias forhis encouragement and valuable com-ments. This research is funded by theUniversity of the Witwatersrand�s Post-doctoral Fellowship.

ReferencesABEL W., 1931, Kritische Untersuchungen über

Australopithecus africanus Dart, Gegenbaursmorphologische Jahrbuch, 65, 539-640

ADLOFF P., 1932, Das Gebiss von Australopithe-cus africanus Dart: Einige erganzende Bemer-gungen zum Eckzahnproblem, Zeitschrift fürAnatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte, 97,145-156

BOAZ N. T., 1981, History of American paleoan-thropological research on early Hominidae,1925-1980, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 56, 397-406

BOWLER P. J., 1986, Theories of Human Evolu-tion: A Century of Debate, 1844-1944, JohnHopkins University Press, Baltimore

BROOM R., 1933, The Coming of Man: Was itAccident or Design?, Witherby, London

BROOM R., 1950, Finding the missing link, Watts,London

DART R., 1925, Australopithecus africanus theman-ape of South Africa, Nature, 112, 195-199

DART R. A., D. CRAIG, 1959, Adventures with theMissing Link, Harper, New York

GREGORY W. K., 1916, Studies on the evolution ofprimates, Bulletin of the American Museum ofNatural History, 35, 336-344

GREGORY W. K., 1930, The origin of man from abrachiating anthropoid stock, Science, 71,645-650

GREGORY W. K., M. HELMAN, 1939a, Fossil man-apes of South Africa, Nature, 43, 25-26

GREGORY W. K., M. HELMAN, 1939b, The denti-tion of the extinct South African man-apeAustralopithecus (Plesianthropus) transvaalen-sis Broom. A comparative and phylogeneticstudy, Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 19,339-373

GREGORY W. K., M HELMAN, 1939c, The SouthAfrican fossil man-apes and the origin of thehuman dentition, Journal of the AmericanDental Association, 26, 558-564

LE GROS CLARK W. E., 1967, Man-apes or Ape-man? The Story of Discoveries in Africa, Holt,Reinhart and Winston, Inc., New York

MAYR E., 1950, Taxonomic categories in fossilhominids, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia onQuantitative Biology, 15, 109-117

MORTON D. J., 1922, Evolution of the human foot.Part I, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 5, 305-336

MORTON D. J., 1924a, Evolution of the humanfoot. Part II, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 7, 1-52

MORTON D. J., 1924b, Evolution of the longitudi-nal arch of the human foot, Journal of Boneand Joint Surgery, 6, 17-24

MORTON D. J., 1926a, Significant characteristicsof the Neanderthal foot, Nat. Hist., 26, 130-134

MORTON D. J., 1926b, Evolution of man’s erectposture, Journal of Morphology and Physiol-ogy, 43, 147-179

MORTON D. J., 1927, Human origin: correlation ofprevious studies of primate feet and posturewith other morphological evidence, Am. J.Phys. Anthropol., 10, 173-203

REED C. A., 1983, A short history of the discoveryand early study of the australopithecines: thefirst find to the death of Robert Broom (1925-1952), [in:] Hominid Origins: Inquiries Pastand Present, Reichs, K. J. (ed.), University ofAmerica Press

Goran �trkalj38

STEPAN N., 1982, The Idea of Race in Science:Great Britain 1800-1960, Archon Books,Hamden

STENT, G. S., 1972, Prematurity and uniqueness inscientific discovery, Sci. Am., 227, 84-93

TATTERSALL I., 1995, The Fossil Trail, OxfordUniversity Press, New York and Oxford

TOBIAS P. V., 1982, Man the Tottering Biped: TheEvolution of His Erect Posture, Committee inPostgraduate Medical Education, University ofNew South Wales, NSW Australia

TOBIAS P. V., 1984, Dart, Taung and the ‘MissingLink’, Witwatersrand University Press for theInstitute for the Study of Man in Africa, Jo-hannesburg

TOBIAS P. V., 1996, Premature discoveries inscience with especial reference to Australo-pithecus and Homo habilis, Proc. Am. Phil.Soc., 14, 49-64

TOBIAS P. V., 1998, Ape-like Australopithecusafter seventy years: was it a hominid?, J. Roy.Anthropol. Inst., (N.S.) 4, 283-308

WATSON E., S. ESTEAL, D. PENNY, 1998, Homogenus: a taxonomic revision, Paper presentedat the Dual Congress, Sun City, South Africa,28 June - 4 July 1998

WASHBURN L. S., 1985, Human Evolution afterRaymond Dart, Witwatersrand UniversityPress for the Institute for the Study of Man inAfrica, Johannesburg

StreszczenieOdkrycie przez Raymonda Darta czaszki z Taung (Australopithecus africanus), od którego

ogłoszenia mija właśnie 75 lat, było jednym z najważniejszych wydarzeń w historii paleoan-tropologii. Było ono zarazem jednym z najbardziej kontrowersyjnych. Interpretacja Darta, żejest to czaszka małpy o wielu ludzkich cechach, która należała do wczesnego przodka (lubistoty blisko z tym przodkiem spokrewnionej) dzisiejszego człowieka, została ogólnie zaak-ceptowana dopiero ćwierć wieku później. Dart jednakże nie zdecydował się zaliczyć rodzajuAustralopithecus do rodziny Hominidae. Utworzył dla niego nową rodzinę, którą w swejpierwszej publikacji [DART 1925] nazwał �Homo-simiadae� lub �małpoludy�. Zarówno Dart,jak i wielu zwolenników jego poglądu, traktowali zazwyczaj australopiteka jak �progresywnąmałpę�, znajdującą się �na drodze� do osiągnięcia w pełni ludzkiego statusu.

Byli jednakże antropolodzy, którzy już wówczas, w niewiele lat po odkryciu, gotowi bylizaklasyfikować australopiteka do Hominidae. Jak się okazuje, pierwszym uczonym, któryzasugerował taką klasyfikację był Amerykanin D.J. MORTON [1927]. Posunął się on nawetdalej, sugerując, że dziecko z Taung i oczywiście wszystkie dwunożne hominidy powinny byćwłączone do rodzaju Homo. Na początku lat trzydziestych, niemiecki antropolog P. ADLOFF[1932] zdecydowanie uznał australopiteki za przedstawicieli rodziny człowiekowatych. Roz-strzygającym kryterium dla uznania przez niego szczątków z Taung za przedstawiciela rodzinyHominidae miały ludzkie cechy uzębienia tej czaszki. Poglądy Mortona i Adloffa na ewolucjęczłowieka, które skłoniły ich do podjęcia takich decyzji różniły się od obowiązujących w tychczasach koncepcji i zostały zlekceważone, tymczasem pod wieloma względami są one antycy-pacją dzisiejszego punktu widzenia paleoantropologów na to zagadnienie.