Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T01:25:07.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘Ape-Men’ of South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

W. E. Le Gros Clark*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Extract

In 1925, Professor Dart of the Witwatersrand University described the well-known Taungs skull (Australopithecus). He pointed out that, in spite of the obviously ape-like proportions of the brain, there were certain features (particularly in the dentition) in which this fossil primate resembled Man more closely than do any of the known anthropoid apes. In general, other anatomists agreed that this certainly was so, but some regarded the resemblances as little more than interesting examples of parallelism having no particular reference to the origin of the human family (Hominidae). In 1936 and the following years, Dr R. Broom, F.R.S., of the Transvaal Museum, discovered many more remains of similar ape-like creatures, including teeth, portions of skulls and jaws, and parts of the limb skeleton. Incidentally, he believed these remains to represent two types closely related to Australopithecus but generically distinct, and he gave them the names Plesianthropus and Paranthropus. Whether this generic distinction will be accepted as valid is a subject of controversy. Actually, however, it is (for the moment) a matter of no great importance, for it is agreed that they all certainly belong to the same group, the Australopithecinae. Dr Broom's account of his discoveries (which were made at Sterkfontein and Kromdraai—not far from Johannesburg) was published in 1946. It became clear from his description and illustrations that the hominid traits of the Australopithecinae were even more remarkable than many anatomists had supposed. So much was this the case, indeed, that some of those who had shown a cautious reserve towards the Taungs skull now expressed their conviction that these extinct primates were by no means merely “ anthropoid apes ”. On the contrary, they agreed that they provided evidence of the utmost importance for problems of human evolution. But although this now became widely accepted, one or two critics continued to combat it with rather unusual (and also rather puzzling) vehemence. Meanwhile, unperturbed by these minor protests regarding his earlier discoveries, Dr Broom was quietly working away at his excavations at Sterkfontein, and in 1947 he came upon an astonishingly rich collection of Australopithecine remains closely packed together in a small and circumscribed locus of dense limestone. This new material proved to be much more complete and perfectly preserved than anything hitherto found in the area, and included several skulls or parts of skulls, many teeth, and an exceptionally fine specimen of a pelvic bone.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R. Broom and G. W, H. Schepers. ‘The South African Fossil Ape-men’, The Austral-opithecinae, Transvaal Mus. Mem., No. 2, 1946.

2 R. Broom, J. T. Robinson and G. W. H. Schepers. ‘The Sterkfontein Ape-man’, Plesianthropus, Transvaal Mus. Mem., No. 4, 1950.

3 ‘New palaeontological evidence bearing on the evolution of the Hominoidea’. Quart. J. Geol. Soc., London, vol. 105, p. 225, 1950.

4 S. Zuckerman. Nature, April 22, 1950, p. 652.

5 Indeed, as already emphasized, it would be necessary to produce several specimens, taken at random from a common group, in order to parallel the consistency with which the hominid pattern is found in the many specimens now available of the Australopithecinae.

6 Of course, if the answer were known in advance, it might be possible to select measurements in order to demonstrate statistically that Canis really has closer affinities to the Elephant than to the Tasmanian wolf. But this hardly provides a vindication of this method (unless it is applied very critically).

7 H. M. Kern and W. L. Straus. ‘The femur of Plesianthropus’, Am. Journ. Phys. Anthr,, vol. 7, p. 53, 1949.

8 The arguments in favour of this interpretation have been presented in some detail elsewhere (Quart, J. Geol. Soc., London, vol. 105, p. 225, 1950).