Andrews' Perspectives On Geographic Origin Of Human Ancestors

[DD1991]

With regards to early studies of the geographic origins of mankind's relatives, it's important to know that Australopithecus was discovered two years after Roy Chapman Andrews went to Mongolia to try to find the earliest human ancestors. I know that Andrews never found early human ancestors in Mongolia and Australopithecus is three million years older than any of the early human beings discovered before Andrews' expedition to Mongolia, but Andrews and Osborn did not expect a human relative to be found in Africa. Would Andrews have considered the possibility of Africa being the cradle of mankind if he didn't find human ancestors in Africa? Did Osborn and Andrews ever change their mind about the geographic origin of mankind after hearing about the discovery of Paranthropus and other early human relatives in Africa in the 1930s?

[painshill]

It’s pretty unlikely that Osborn changed his views on “out of Asia” – he died in 1935 before the significance of the African finds was realised (or perhaps accepted would be a better word).

The first Paranthropus find in Africa was in 1938, a few years after Osborn’s death. The first probable ancestral australopithecine fossil in Africa (Australopithecus africanus) was found in 1924 and published in 1925 by Dart. Certainly Osborn would have been aware of that, but probably not the second Australopithecus find in 1935 (the year he died).

However, Dart’s publication of that first find (a partial skull now known as Taung Child 1) was treated with a mixture of scepticism, scorn and derision. The respected anatomist Arthur Keith commented: “[Dart's] claim is preposterous, the skull is that of a young anthropoid ape… and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group”.

Dart’s assessment that the skull was specifically a hominid rather than just a hominin was ultimately judged to be correct, but it took decades for that acceptance and Osborn was long dead by that time. Unfortunately for Dart, there was still excitement about “Piltdown Man” found in 1912, which was not exposed as a fake until 1953. It was still presumed to be an early human ancestor when Dart published, but since it had a large brain and ape-like teeth (the exact opposite of Dart’s find in Africa) it greatly influenced the dismissal of Dart’s completely correct interpretation.

As for Andrews, although he lived until 1960, he gradually lost interest in anthropology and concentrated more on the spectacular dinosaur fossils he was finding (and selling). It does seem however that he recognised the importance of the African finds. He published a book called “Meet Your Ancestors” in 1945, although it was by no means a scientific work and really aimed at a lowbrow audience. It was also full of howlers based on outdated ideas, as well as political incorrectness about the origins of man and laughable illustrations of what our ancestors might have looked like.

Nevertheless he made significant comment in the book about the Australopithecus group of Southern Africa, referring to it as the “missing link”. It’s clear that he didn’t recognise the concept of “family tree” that we have today, which doesn’t raise the issue of a missing link in the sense that he perceived it, but it’s also clear that he was no longer holding out for the “out of Asia” theory.

Edited February 22, 2014 by painshill

[xonenine]

sounds like a very interesting read, the date may have been transposed, I have 1945...

Meet your ancestors, a biography of primitive man (1945)

(this ebook is available for Open Library members, membership is free, along with a new Adobe Digital Editions package, which is an optional download)

Edited February 21, 2014 by xonenine

[painshill]

sounds like a very interesting read, the date may have been transposed, I have 1945...

Meet your ancestors, a biography of primitive man (1945)

(this ebook is available for Open Library members, membership is free, along with a new Adobe Digital Editions package, which is an optional download)

Yep... that's the one. Clumsy typing fingers! I've corrected the date in my post to 1945.

[RichW9090]

Osborn was predisposed to accept an Asiatic origin for most mammals, especially the Neogene ones. The discovery of H. erectus in Java fit in with his ideas, as did the discovery of certain fossils like Tragoceros in North America. Thus, when Harold Cook sent him the worn tooth from Nebraska which looked rather anthropoid, he named it Hesperopithecus haroldcooki, calling it an anthropoid ape. That didn't last long, as within 5 years his co-workers, William K. Gregory and Milo Hellmann announced that it was in fact a peccary.