Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


October 17, 2011

How Africa Became the Cradle of Humankind

The Taung Child was killed by an eagle about three million years ago. Image courtesy of Wikicommons

If you know anything about human evolution, it’s probably that humans arose in Africa. But you may not know how scientists came to that conclusion. It’s one of my favorite stories in the history of paleoanthropology—one that involves an anatomist you’ve probably never heard of and an infant who was attacked by an eagle and dropped into a hole almost three million years ago.

The idea that humans evolved in Africa can be traced to Charles Darwin. In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin speculated that it was “probable” that Africa was the cradle of humans because our two closest living relatives—chimpanzees and gorillas—live there. However, he also noted, a large, extinct ape once lived in Europe millions of years ago, leaving plenty of time for our earliest ancestors to migrate to Africa. So, he concluded, “it’s useless to speculate on the subject.”

By the early 20th century, the world’s leading anatomists thought they knew the answer: Humans evolved somewhere in Europe or Asia. By then, Neanderthals had been found in Europe; Java Man (now known as Homo erectus) had been discovered in Indonesia and Piltdown Man (later exposed as a hoax) had been unearthed in England. Although these ancient beings were primitive, they clearly resembled modern humans.

In 1924, a fossil discovery in South Africa challenged this view of a Eurasian homeland and revolutionized the study of human evolution.

Raymond Dart, an Australian-born anatomist working at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, was interested in fossils. In the fall of 1924, as Dart was preparing to attend a wedding, two boxes of rocks blasted from a limestone quarry near the town of Taung were delivered at his house. Over the objections of his wife, Dart, dressed in formal wear, dug into one of the boxes. He found something amazing: the fossilized mold of a brain.

This was a special brain. The shape and folds on the brain’s surface implied it belonged to some kind of human—perhaps an ancient human ancestor, Dart thought. Further digging led Dart to another rock that the brain fit perfectly into. After months of careful chipping, Dart freed the brain’s corresponding face and lower jaw on December 23. “I doubt if there was any parent prouder of his offspring,” Dart later wrote in his 1959 book Adventures with the Missing Link, “on that Christmas of 1924.”

It was probably the best Christmas present a paleoanthropologist could ever receive. The creature’s baby teeth revealed that it was a child (probably 3 or 4 years old, scientists now think). Other features of the so-called Taung Child confirmed Dart’s suspicion that he was handling a human ancestor. Although the being looked apish in many ways, the face lacked a pronounced muzzle as seen in chimps and gorillas. And the placement of the hole through which the spinal cord exits the bottom of the skull—the foramen magnum—suggested the Taung Child had an erect posture and walked upright on two legs (animals that travel on four legs, such as chimps and gorillas, have a foramen magnum more toward the back of the skull).

Dart wasted no time in reporting his results, announcing in early February 1925, in the journal Nature (PDF), that he had found “an extinct race of apes intermediate between living anthropoids [monkeys and apes] and man.” He named it Australopithecus africanus (“Southern Ape of Africa”).

Australopithecus africanus did not receive a warm welcome from experts in the field. In the minds of most academics, there was a lot to criticize. Many derided Dart for rushing to publication, and media hoopla surrounding the announcement—before experts had a chance to take a close look at the finding—irked more established anatomists. Researchers even ridiculed Dart for mixing Latin and Greek when inventing the name “Australopithecus.”

The biggest problems were scientific. No one had any idea what the Taung Child would have looked like as an adult. Furthermore, in addition to being from the wrong continent, the fossil was too ape-like to fit the early-20th-century view of human evolution. At the time, fossils like Piltdown Man indicated the earliest humans evolved big brains before other aspects of modern human physiology emerged—even before the ability to walk upright. Thus, experts dismissed the Taung fossil as just an old ape.

But at least one person thought Dart was right. Paleontologist Robert Broom took up Dart’s cause. While investigating several limestone caves in South Africa during the 1930s and 1940s, Broom discovered numerous fossils of adult “ape-men” specimens that looked similar to Dart’s Taung Child. The mounting evidence—plus the uncovering of the Piltdown Hoax in the late 1940s and early 1950s—convinced even the most ardent skeptics that australopithecines belonged in the human family, and that Africa was the birthplace of humans. The work dramatically altered the trajectory of human evolution studies, changing where people looked for human fossils and what they expected to find.

Not all of Dart’s ideas have stood the test of time, however. As fossils of australopithecines were uncovered in South African caves, Dart noticed they were always found in association with animal parts—particularly the teeth, jaws and horns of hoofed animals. Dart believed these were the remains of an “osteodontokeratic” (bone, tooth and horn) culture, in which early humans used these broken bits as tools for warfare and hunting. Scientists later realized that predators such as leopards had accumulated the heaps of bones. In fact, holes on the Taung Child reveal it was the victim of a hungry eagle that dropped part of its meal into the entrance of the cave where the fossil was eventually found.

I never get tired of the story of Raymond Dart, in part because the Taung Child is kind of an adorable fossil. But mostly it’s because Dart’s work is a great reminder that nothing in human evolution is written in stone; you have to keep an open mind.



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

14 Comments »

  1. Sarah says:

    Great story, but please — “kind of an adorable fossil?”
    Kind of adorable writing, actually.

  2. rick doninger says:

    What I find incredibly amazing is how this article furthers the theories yet concedes that “nothing in human evolution is written in stone.” The cradle of mankind theory is still just that , “theory” yet how it is being taught as absolute truth within most mainstream archaeological circles discredits those who take such pride in educating us all. There is still no absolute proof of the theory but with enough repitition it has become widely accepted, almost as if the intent is to instill belief regardless of the lack of evidence. For example, the “tool trail” that is assumed to accompany the early hominid fossils that have been found. The same “type” early man tools that have been found in the theoried “cradle of mankind” have also been found in N. America, although the mainstream theorists have chosen to ignore and even discredit such finds. Why? I can only speculate that it is because such evidence presents a very serious and credible challenge to the currently propagandized “theory”. Without the tool trail to accompany the alleged “fossil trail” the foundation of early human evolution and migration is obviously just assumption combined with personal agenda and prejudice. It certainly seems that exhibitors and benefactors such as Mr. Koch and the “Hall Of Human Origins” folks would want to present ALL of the evidence of our origins and not just that which fits the currently proposed “theory” or at least present such an exhibit honestly as “theory” instead of fact. Just because evidence of earliest man has not been found elsewhere does not mean it isn’t still to be discovered. as the author said, nothing is written in stone.

  3. Gary says:

    What is amazing is that some of the textbooks still in use today reference piltdown man as archaeological evidence.. When will mainstream education become informed?

  4. Leslie Breakstone says:

    I just keep wishing that people like Mr Doninger would study all the evidence and current thinking before they speak. The term “tool trail” is not to be found in academic literature. “Tool types” found with hominids in Africa and Asia are millions of years old; tools found in North America are only tens of thousands by the most extreme estimates. The opinions of experts in the field differ widely and sometimes acrimoniously; there is no conspiracy to “instill belief” in a paricular view, especially in recent decades as new technologies continue to call cherished beliefs into question; no expert would ever be caught promoting “absolute truth” in this field. The debates center around actual evidence. Most of the published descriptions are available to be studied by Mr Doninger as well as the rest of us. I don’t want to prevent anyone from expressing their viewpoint, I just wish people would become informed before they do so.

  5. rinocerouszs says:

    Recent Blogroll Additions……

    [...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……

  6. Outstanding post, I think website owners should acquire a lot from this website its very user genial. So much superb info on here :D.

  7. Robert E. Daniels says:

    Very interesting post even though I’ve read it before and have even seen it on the History channel. It’s amazing how much labor was involved by so many to arrive as these discoveries. I also get quite a kick out of the comments..

  8. Psilocrosse says:

    When I read the beginning of this article the author said he was going to tell us how we know that “humans” arose in Africa not australopithicines. I already know that story and I was hoping for some new information about humans.

    Interestingly, I recently read about a find of homo erectus fossils that raises the possibilty that Homo erectus evolved in Eurasia before returning to Africa. If that turns out to be true should we ignore Homo habalis and heidelbergensis and say that “humans arose” out of Eurasia?

  9. Erin Wayman says:

    Psilocrosse, you make a good point. The term “human” can mean different things to different people or in different contexts. I have also heard about the possibility that Homo erectus may have evolved in Asia and then returned to Africa. It’s an intriguing idea and worthy of a future post.

    But it seems likely the genus Homo (perhaps as Homo habilis) first evolved in Africa and then migrated to Eurasia (and then eventually returned to Africa, perhaps as Homo erectus). Homo heidelbergensis, which some people think is ancestral to Homo sapiens, could have still evolved in Africa. And I think the earliest evidence of Homo sapiens still comes from Africa. So it seems important milestones in our genus’ history could have happened in both Africa and Asia.

  10. Another question that the interbreeding of Sapiens with Neanderthals brings up is: What defines separate species as opposed to separate races or breeds? Just looking at teeth there are some very significant differences between Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids such that if scientists analyzed modern homonids the same as more archaic homonids they would classify them as separate species.

  11. Aaron Kocourek says:

    sed to separate races or breeds? Just looking at teeth there are some very significant differences between Caucasoids Aaron Kocourek

  12. Mary says:

    I think what ultimately separates a species is the inability to interbreed.

  13. j.v says:

    I see that a lot of theories are being expressed, what about a warm climate being able to sustain and excelarate a faster evelution of mankind. I would think it would be hard to mutiply fast enough in a cold climate to be able to support a migration big enough to populate the world.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement