Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:42:40.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stories of stones and bones: disciplinarity, narrative and practice in British popular prehistory, 1911–1935

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2016

AMANDA REES
AMANDA REES*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores how three central figures in the field of British prehistory – Sir Arthur Keith, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith and Louis Leakey – deployed different disciplinary practices and narrative devices in the popular accounts of human bio-cultural evolution that they produced during the early decades of the twentieth century. It shows how they used a variety of strategies, ranging from virtual witness through personal testimony to tactile demonstration, to ground their authority to interpret the increasingly wide range of fossil material available and to answer the bewildering variety of questions that could be asked about them. It investigates the way in which they positioned their own professional expertise in relation to fossil interpretation, particularly with regard to the – sometimes controversial – use they made of concepts, evidence and practices drawn from other disciplines. In doing so, they made claims that went beyond their original disciplinary boundaries. The paper argues that while none of these writers were able, ultimately, to support the wider claims they made regarding human prehistory, the nature of these claims deserves much closer attention, particularly with respect to the public role that historians of science can and should play in relation to present-day calls for greater interdisciplinarity.

Type
Special Section: Palaeonarratives and Palaeopractices: Excavating and Interpreting Deep History
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 433 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 2016 

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 Leakey, Louis, Adam's Ancestors: An Up-to-Date Outline of What Is Known about the Origin of Man, London: Methuen, 1934 Google Scholar. The book had gone through four editions by the late 1950s, as Leakey tried to keep up with rapid palaeoanthropological developments – see his correspondence with Kenneth Oakley (Natural History Museum Archives DF 140/211).

2 Leakey, Louis, The Stone Age Cultures of Kenya Colony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931 Google Scholar; and Leakey, The Stone Age Races of Kenya, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Most of his later popular work appeared in National Geographic and the Illustrated London News ( Morell, Virginia, Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for Humankind's Beginnings, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995 Google Scholar), and his last popular book appeared in 1969 (Louis Leakey and Vanne Goodall, Unveiling Man's Origins: Ten Decades of Thought about Human Origins, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman).

3 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. xi.

4 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. 2. Note that the authors of the texts discussed in this article commonly used what would now be regarded as sexist or racist language. When quoting or paraphrasing their work, I have followed their usage. I do so without either condoning or accepting their implications.

5 Bowler, Peter, Theories of Human Evolution: A Century of Debate, 1844–1944, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986 Google Scholar; Landau, Misiau, Narratives of Human Evolution, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991 Google Scholar.

6 Amongst his family and protégés, Leakey inaugurated a ‘hobby’ of producing semi-autobiographical popular science books ( Leakey, Mary, Disclosing the Past, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984 Google Scholar). Leakey wrote two volumes of autobiography ( White African: An Early Autobiography, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937 Google Scholar, and By the Evidence: Memoirs, 1932–1951, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1974 Google Scholar). Mary also published a popular account of the discoveries at Olduvai Gorge ( Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man, London: Collins, 1979 Google Scholar). Their son Richard Leakey has followed this example, as have Leakey's ‘trimates’, Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Galdikas.

7 Series such as the Thinker's Library and the Forum series, both produced by the commercial publishers Watts and Co., frequently included volumes devoted to both human prehistory and human evolution, while the ten-volume Corridors of Time series written by Harold Peake and Herbert John Fleure for the Clarendon Press (1926–1957) took the ‘serious student’ from the origin of life to the Iron Age. See also Bowler, Peter, ‘Experts and publishers: writing popular science in early twentieth-century Britain, writing popular history of science now’, BJHS (2006) 39, pp. 159–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For archaeology in general see Layard, Austin Henry, A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh, London: John Murray & Sons, 1856 Google Scholar; Schliemann, Heinrich, Mycenae, London: John Murray & Sons, 1878 Google Scholar. For commentary, Duesterberg, Susanne, Popular Receptions of Archaeology: Fiction and Factual Texts in 19th and Early 20th Century Britain, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Woolley, Leonard (Spadework: Adventures in Archaeology, London: Lutterworth Press, 1953)Google Scholar and Wheeler, Mortimer (Still Digging: Interleaves from an Antiquary's Notebook, London: Michael Joseph, 1955)Google Scholar dominated the public face of archaeology in the mid-twentieth century.

9 Bulstrode, Jenny, ‘The industrial archaeology of deep time’, BJHS (2016) 49(1), pp. 1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Lamdin-Whymark, Hugo, ‘Sir John Evans: experimental flint knapping and the origins of lithic research’, Lithics (2009) 30, pp. 45–52 Google Scholar; Evans, Joan, Time and Chance: The Story of Arthur Evans and His Forebears, London and New York: Longmans and Co., 1943 Google Scholar.

11 Figures such as Lubbock and William Boyd Dawkins had often interpreted the relationships between fossil and extant humanity racially, identifying direct descendants of fossil forms both ‘civilized’ and ‘savage’. See Goodrum, Matthew, ‘The idea of prehistory: the natural sciences, the human sciences and the problem of human origins in Victorian Britain’, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences (2012) 34, pp. 117–146 Google ScholarPubMed; and Goodrum, , ‘Crafting a new science: defining palaeoanthropology and its relationship to prehistoric archaeology, 1860–1890’, Isis (2014) 105, pp. 706–733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the relationships between the concepts of evolution, prehistory and race in this context. See Sommer, Marianne, ‘Ancient hunters and their modern representatives: William Sollas’ (1849–1936) anthropology’, Journal of the History of Biology (2005) 38(2), pp. 327–365 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, for a discussion of a later effort in the same tradition.

12 Manias, Chris, ‘ Sinanthropus in Britain: human origins and international science, 1920–1939’, BJHS (2015) 48(2), pp. 289–319 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Goodrum, Matthew, ‘The history of human origins research and its place in the history of science: research problems and historiography’, History of Science (2009) 47, pp. 337–357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 For Leakey see Ofcansky, Thomas, ‘L.S.B. Leakey: a biobibilographical study’, History in Africa (1985) 12, pp. 211–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morell, op. cit. (2); Bowman-Kruhm, Mary, The Leakeys: A Biography, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005 Google Scholar. On Keith and Smith see relevant chapters in Landau, op. cit. (5); and Bowler, op. cit. (5). Manias, op. cit. (12), discusses both men in the context of the British reception of Sinanthropus. Warren Dawson edited Sir Grafton Elliot Smith: A Biographical Record by His Colleagues, London: Jonathan Cape, 1938; and also see Elkin, A.P. and Macintosh's, Neil Grafton Elliot Smith: The Fan and His Work (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1974)Google Scholar. Crook, Paul, Grafton Elliot Smith, Egyptology and the Diffusion of Culture, Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2012 Google Scholar. Sommer, op. cit. (11), provides a short discussion of Smith's approach to cultural diffusion. Aside from Keith's, own autobiography (An Autobiography, London: Watts & Co., 1950)Google Scholar, little has appeared on his career, although Marianne Sommer has discussed his work in relation to other palaeoanthropological contributors – see Sommer, , ‘Human tools of the European Tertiary? Artefacts, brains and minds in evolutionist reasoning’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (2011), 65(1), pp. 65–82 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Sommer, , Bones and Ochre: The Curious Afterlife of the Red Lady of Paviland, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007 Google Scholar. See also Hayward, Rhodri, ‘The biopolitics of Arthur Keith and Morley Roberts’, in Laurence, Christopher and Mayer, Anna-K. (eds.), Regenerating England: Science, Medicine and Culture in Inter-war England, Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V., 2000, pp. 251–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Many studies of Piltdown have appeared. For a personal account see Weiner, Joseph, The Piltdown Forgery, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980 Google Scholar. Spencer, Frank, The Piltdown Papers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 Google Scholar, seeks to identify the ‘culprit’, while Goulden, Murray, ‘Bringing bones to life: how science made Piltdown man human’, Science as Culture (2007) 16, pp. 333–337 Google Scholar, adopts an STS perspective.

15 Goodrum, ‘Crafting a new science’, op. cit. (11). Dawkins, William Boyd, Cave Hunting: Researches on the Evidence of Caves Respecting the Early Inhabitants of Europe, London: Macmillan and Co., 1874 Google Scholar; Windle, Bertram, Remains of the Prehistoric Age in England, London: Methuen and Co., 1904 Google Scholar; Lubbock, John, Prehistoric Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Customs and Manners of Modern Savages, London: Williams & Norgate, 1865 Google Scholar.

16 In 1899, Neanderthal fossils were found at Krapina (Croatia), the Mauer jaw was found at Heidelberg in 1907, and Le Moustier and La Chapelle-aux-Saints were both excavated in 1908 by Otto Hauser and the Abbés Jean and Amédée Bouyssonie respectively. In 1909, Hauser was working on Combe Capelle and the La Ferrassie ‘burial’ was found. Further bones were retrieved at La Quina in 1911.

17 See Goodrum, ‘The idea of prehistory’, op. cit. (11).

18 Keith, op. cit. (13); Dawson, op. cit. (13).

19 Keith, Arthur, Ancient Types of Man, London: Harper & Bros., 1911 Google Scholar; Smith, Grafton Elliot, The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence upon the Civilisation of Europe, London: Harper & Bros., 1911 Google Scholar.

20 Keith, op. cit. (13), p. 320.

21 Smith, Grafton Elliot, ‘The evolution of man’, Nature (1912) 90(2239), pp. 118–126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Shapin, Steven, ‘Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology’, Social Studies of Science (1984) 14(4), pp. 481–520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapin, Steven and Schaffer, Simon, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985 Google Scholar; Shapin, Steven, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Vallois, Henri, ‘Neanderthals and praesapiens: the Huxley memorial lecture’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1954) 84(1–2)L, pp. 111–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Keith, op. cit. (19), p. 32.

25 Keith, op. cit. (19), p. 66.

26 Particularly in relation to his discussion of Java man, Keith is at this very early stage supporting a branching, rather than a linear, model of human evolution. See Sommer, op. cit. (11), for a discussion of this conceptual shift.

27 Landau, op. cit. (5).

28 Smith, op. cit. (21), p. 120.

29 Smith, op. cit. (21), p. 120.

30 Smith, Grafton Elliott, ‘The natural subdivision of the cerebral hemisphere’, Journal of Anatomy and Physiology (1901) 35, pp. 431–454 Google ScholarPubMed. Smith saw the interaction between eye, hand and environment as central to neuroanatomical development, with arboreal locomotion as fundamental, since it enabled forelimbs to remain unspecialized and prioritized sight/touch/sound over scent.

31 Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, 2nd edn, London: Williams and Norgate, 1915, p. vi.

32 Keith, op. cit. (31), pp. 1, 5.

33 His Autobiography (Keith, op. cit. (13), p. 318) notes, ‘I never felt satisfied about a discovery until I had examined the scene in which it was made’. Sommer, op. cit. (11), makes a similar point in relation to Fairfield Osborn.

34 An unpublished (possibly unposted) letter in the University of Manchester archives gives context to Keith's potential isolation: with respect to the Piltdown skull reconstruction controversy, he wrote, ‘I have repeatedly had quite reasonable people say “We would take Keith's word for it, if we were sure he was not trying to bolster up [the antiquity of the] Galley Hill and Ipswich”’ fossils (John Rylands University Library Archives, GB 133 GES).

35 Hammond, Michael, ‘The shadow man paradigm in palaeoanthropology: 1911–1945’, in Stocking, George W. (ed.), Bones, Bodies, Behaviour: Essays on Biological Anthropology, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, pp. 117–137 Google Scholar.

36 Keith, op. cit. (31), p. 510.

37 Keith, Arthur, The Construction of Man's Family Tree, London: Watts and Co., 1934 Google Scholar.

38 Woodward, Arthur Smith, ‘A new cave man from Rhodesia, South Africa’, Nature (1921) 108, pp. 371–372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Keith, Arthur, ‘Recent discoveries of fossil man’, Nature, supplement to No 3164, 21 June 1930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Grafton Elliot, The Search for Man's Ancestors, London: Watts and Co., 1931 Google Scholar; Schmalzer, Sigrid, The People's Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Osborn, Henry Fairfield, ‘Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in North America’, Science (1922) 55(1427), pp. 463–466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gregory, William K., ‘Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man’, Science (1927) 66(1720), pp. 579–581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Dart, Raymond, Adventures with the Missing Link, New York: Harper Bros., 1959 Google Scholar; Dawson, op. cit. (13); Young, Matthew, ‘The London skull’, Biometrika (1938) 29(3–4), pp. 277–321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Keith, , The Antiquity of Man, 2nd edn, 2 vols., London: Williams and Norgate, 1925 Google Scholar.

43 Smith, Grafton Elliot, ‘The study of man’, Nature (1923) 112, pp. 440–444, 440CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Smith, Grafton Elliot, The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilisation, London: Harper & Brothers, 1923, p. xGoogle Scholar.

45 Smith, op. cit. (44). See also A.C. Seward, Science and the Nation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917.

46 It is interesting to compare this with the perspectives examined in Leggett, Don and Sleigh, Charlotte, ‘Scientific governance: an introduction’, in Leggett, and Sleigh, (eds.), Scientific Governance in Britain, 1914–79, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016, pp. 1–24 Google Scholar.

47 Smith, op. cit. (44).

48 Grafton Elliot Smith, Human Nature, London: Watts and Co., 1927.

49 Smith, Grafton Elliot, In the Beginning, London: Watts and Co., 1932 Google Scholar; Smith, , Diffusion of Culture, London: Watts and Co., 1933 Google Scholar.

50 Smith, Grafton Elliot, ‘The question of race and hormones’, Nature (1925) 116(2928), pp. 855–856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Keith, Arthur, Concerning Man's Origin, London: Watts and Co., 1927 Google Scholar.

52 Keith, Arthur, Essays on Human Evolution, London: Watts and Co., 1946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keith, , A New Theory of Human Evolution, London: Watts and Co., 1948 Google Scholar.

53 Keith, op. cit. (37); Keith, Arthur, New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man, New York: Norton and Co., 1931 Google Scholar.

54 Keith, op. cit. (53), p. 38.

55 Keith, op. cit. (53), p. 116.

56 Keith, op. cit. (53), p. 139.

57 But see a later discussion for a clarification of this argument: Leakey, Louis and Keith, Arthur, ‘Prehistoric man in Kenya’, Nature (1931) 127(3213), pp. 814–815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Keith, op. cit. (53), pp. 170–171.

59 Leakey, Louis, ‘Stone Age man in Kenya colony’, Nature (1927) 120(3011), pp. 85–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Louis Leakey, ‘The cradle of modern man: Kenya's claim’, The Times, 1 August 1928, pp. 15–16; Leakey, ‘The cradle of man: more evidence from Kenya’, The Times, 7 March 1929, pp. 15–16.

61 Anon., ‘News and views’, Nature (1929) 123(3090), p. 104 Google Scholar; anon., ‘News and views’, Nature (1929) 123(3098), p. 4210 Google Scholar; Leakey, ‘The cradle of modern man’, op. cit. (60); Leakey, Louis and Solomon, J.D., ‘East African archaeology’, Nature (1929) 124(3114), p. 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; anon., ‘Early man in East Africa’, Nature (1929) 124(3124), pp. 413–414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Leakey, Louis, ‘Prehistoric man in Kenya’, Nature (1931) 127(3213), pp. 814–815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leakey, Louis, Hopwood, Arthur and Reck, Hans, ‘Age of the Oldoway bone beds, Tanganyika Territory’, Nature (1931) 128(3234), p. 724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Anon., ‘Archaeologists in East Africa’, The Times, 25 June 1931, p. 20.

64 Anon., ‘Early man in East Africa: Leakey expedition's discoveries’, The Times, 3 December 1931, p. 11; Leakey, Hopwood and Reck, op. cit. (62).

65 Henrika Kuklick and Robert Kohler, Science in the Field, Osiris (1994) 11; Bigg, Charlotte, Aubin, David and Felsch, Philipp (eds.), The Laboratory of Nature: Science in the Mountains, Science in Context (2009) 22(3)Google Scholar; MacLaren, I.S., ‘From exploration to publication: evolution of a nineteenth-century Arctic narrative’, Arctic (1994) 47 (1), pp. 43–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Anon., ‘News and views’, Nature (1931) 128(3241), p. 995 Google Scholar; Cooper, C. Forster and Watson, D.M.S., ‘The Oldoway human skeleton’, Nature (1932) 129(3252), pp. 312–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leakey, Louis, ‘The Oldoway human skeleton’, Nature (1932) 129(3263), pp. 721–722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moir, J. Reid Moir, ‘The Oldoway human skeleton’, Nature (1931) 128(3236), p. 797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wayland, E.J., ‘ Homo sapiens and African prehistory’, Nature (1931) 128(3241), pp. 1003–1004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Louis Leakey, ‘Earliest man: discoveries in Tanganyika’, The Times, 9 March 1932, p. 11.

68 Anon, ‘Earliest man: new find in East Africa’, The Times, 19 April 1932, p. 14; anon., ‘News and views’, Nature (1932) 129(3263), p. 715 Google Scholar.

69 Louis Leakey, ‘Earliest man: new finds in E Africa’, The Times, 19 July 1932, p. 13.

70 Anon., ‘Early man: evidence from East Africa’, The Times, 20 March 1933, p. 9; anon., ‘News and views’, Nature (1933) 131(3308), p. 427 Google Scholar; anon., ‘News and views’, Nature (1933) 131(3309), pp. 462–463 Google Scholar; anon., ‘Early man in East Africa’, Nature (1933) 131(3309), pp. 477–478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Anon., ‘Man and his ancestors’, The Times, 21 October, 1933, p. 11; anon., ‘Homo sapiens and his ancestors’, The Times, 21 October 1933, p. 12.

72 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. 12.

73 Bulstrode, op. cit. (9).

74 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. 76.

75 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. 77.

76 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. 230.

77 Leakey, op. cit. (1), p. 118.

78 Anon., ‘Early man in East Africa: further investigation’, Nature (1934) 134(3393), p. 730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 ‘Presumably, these iron pegs had been converted into spearheads and harpoons for fishing’. Leakey, By the Evidence, op. cit. (6), p. 31.

80 Boswell, P.G.H., ‘Human remains from Kanam and Kanjera, Kenya colony’, Nature (1935) 135(3410), p. 371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which the Times quoted verbatim (anon., ‘Dr Leakey's conclusions challenged’, The Times, 8 March 1935, p. 22). No space could be found in Nature for Leakey's, response (‘Human remains from Kanam and Kanjera, Kenya Colony’, Nature (1935) 135(3425), p. 1041)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Boswell, op. cit. (80).

82 See Mary Leakey, Disclosing the Past, op. cit. (6); and Leakey and Goodall, op. cit. (2). Leakey's personal life did not help his professional isolation: see Morell, op. cit. (2).

83 Woodward, Arthur Smith, ‘Recent progress in the study of early man’, Nature (1935) 136(3437), pp. 419–423, 421CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Smail, Daniel Lord, On Deep History and the Brain, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008 Google Scholar; Shryock, Andrew, Smail, Daniel Lord and Earle, Timothy, Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reddy, William, ‘Neuroscience and the fallacies of functionalism’, History and Theory (2010) 49(3), pp. 412–425 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.