 |
| Figure 1: Evidence of scratches and puncture wounds in the eye orbits of the Taung Child fossil (Source: Berger, Lee) |
In 1925 Raymond Dart announced a discovery that would revolutionize the world of paleoanthropology: he announced the discovery of the Taung Child, the first species of Australopithecus africanus. The Taung Child fossil is made up of the facial bones, portions of the temporal bones, mandible, and endocast of the brain. Together, these pieces measure 5 inches long, 3 inches wide, and 4 inches wide, meaning they are very small. The postcranial remains and remaining posterior elements of the brain case are missing. Subsequent analysis of these remains rendered an age at death estimate of 3 years old, further supporting the small size of the Taung Child. These fine details are important because they aid the conclusions reached by Lee Berger and collegues, who concluded that the Taung Child met its untimely death at the hand, or claws rather, of a large bird of prey.
Berger and R.J. Clarke initially announced their hypothesis that it was a large bird of prey (e.g., eagle, hawk, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, or owl) that was responsible for killing the Taung Child in 1995. They cited various scratches and puncture wounds on the skull (Figure 1) as evidence to support this hypothesis, but this was insufficient evidence for the paleoanthropological community to accept this conclusion outright. There were legitimate concerns about their idea, specifically in that there was no evidence that ancient birds of prey attacked hominid species. Citing contemporary evidence that no ape species have been attacked, let alone killed, by birds of prey it seemed unlikely that a hominid species would meet a similar end. It was a matter of size and the belief that hominid would have been too big and heavy for a large bird of prey to carry.
There is substantial evidence, however, that demonstrates that various modern-day birds of prey will attack, kill, and consume small nonhuman primate species. This has been readily observed and recorded by scholars over the decades (Figure 2). The carrying capacity (weight limit) of modern birds of prey is approximately 13 kilograms (or just under 29 pounds). While present day apes and humans are typically much larger than that it was assumed that birds of prey species of the past would have been leery or unwilling to attack a hominid species.
 |
| Figure 2: African crown eagle killing a vervet monkey (Source: Hugh Chittenden) |
Berger and his colleagues, however, took the critiques and confronted them. They conducted additional research on the Taung Child remains. They recorded several scratches and puncture wounds across the fossilized remains, noting their present around and within the eye sockets, the forehead, and side of the skull. They measured their depth and spacing to help them determine the cause of these marks, comparing them to other marks made by various other species (from eagles to rodents). They also reviewed Raymond Dart’s notes about how he handled and studied the Taung Child’s remains when he came into custody of them.
They ruled out several explanations for the marks, noting that they were less likely caused by rodents due to lack of uniformity and spacing and that Dart admitted to scratching the skull but only on one side, not both as evidenced on the fossilized remains. When the marks on the Taung Child were compared to those present on small primate species and created by African crowned eagles it seemed that a large bird of prey was the likely culprit of the marks present on Taung. Furthermore, Berger and his colleagues noted that similar marks were present on other nonhuman primate species found within the same contexts as Taung, further demonstrating that birds of prey were consuming nonhuman primate species well in the past.
The scientific community seemed satisfied with these results, although Berger and others have admitted that they would like additional evidence to support their conclusions further. This required evidence, however, may be difficult to collect as it would need to be additional juvenile hominid species. These remains are difficult to recover in modern contexts, let alone in the paleolithic contexts, meaning it may be a long time before additional supporting evidence is available. For now, however, it does appear that the Taung Child met its at the end of a bird of prey’s claws and beak.
Bibliography
Berger, L. (2006). Brief Communication: Predatory Bird Damage to the Taung Type-Skull of Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 166-168.
Berger, L., & McGraw, W. (2007). Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung Child. South African Journal of Science , 496-503.
McGraw, W., & Berger, L. (2013). Raptors and Primate Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 280-293.
