Archaeopteryx as an icon

Note: This is the text of a research proposal submitted to the European University Institute in Florence in October, 2006. This story begins more than one hundred and forty million years ago, with a number of small animals falling into a shallow lagoon on one of the islands that made up jurassic Bavaria. One of these animals, carefully preserved in the most delicate of sediments, was to start a second life as one of the most famous and certainly most controversial fossils.

In 1860, a single feather was discovered in the jurassic limestone formations of Solnhofen, Bavaria, by quarrymen. It was baptized Archaeopteryx lithographica, ‘ancient feather from the limestone’, by Germany’s leading palaeontologist, Hermann von Meyer. The same quarrymen unearthed a much larger fossil in 1861, one featuring feathers in combination with numerous reptilian traits. The find did not stir much at first; it was given, as often happened, in exchange for medical help to a local doctor, Carl Häberlein. Häberlein, however, seems to have known immediately that he had struck gold. Two years after the much-discussed publication of Charles Darwin’s much-discussed On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), this was exactly the kind of hybrid organism Darwin’s supporters would be looking for. Evidently a shrewd tradesman, Häberlein showed the fossil to several scientists without allowing anyone to make notes or sketches. As a consequence, the rise of expectations was only paralleled by Häberlein’s price. The highest bidder turned out to be the British Museum of Natural History, but the cost of the purchase depleted its funds for years to come.

It was not only that Archaeopteryx showed traits of two classes of animals; it demonstrated also exactly the degree of overlap the evolutionists could have wished for in a gradual development from reptile to bird. Finally, it was instrumental in demonstrating the importance that the fossil record could have in illustrating the processes of evolution at work.

The second Archaeopteryx specimen, and the best-preserved one by far (in contrast to the London specimen it shows a skull as well) was acquired in 1876 by another member of the Häberlein family, Carl’s son Ernst. He offered it to the Bavarian State Collection in Munich along with other Solnhofen fossils, for the unheard-of sum of 36,000 Reichsmarks. The museum was not able to raise such figures, and once again Archaeopteryx threatened to fly out of Germany. However, Häberlein could be persuaded to lower the price to a mere 20,000 Marks, at which point a donation by the industrialist Werner von Siemens gave the Prussian state the opportunity and the means to buy it and retain Archaeopteryx for Germany . Since then, eight more specimens have been uncovered, the last one as recent as 2003. This battle of prestige between German, English, and also American institutions gives us some idea of the enormous significance attributed to this fossil. By the early 1860s full war had broken out in scientific but also in public circles as a consequence of the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Archaeopteryx lithographica proved to be a powerful tool in the hands of the evolutionists. It was not the only known fossil showing features from more than one; however, it stood apart as a perfect mixture between reptiles and birds, possessing supposedly unique features of both groups, but being neither.

A (no longer) ‘missing link’ in the terms of the day, it became one of the quintessential symbols of Darwinian evolution, and as such a vital tool to gain public acceptance for it . As a result, Archaeopteryx became strongly identified with the theory of evolution in both the public and scientific eye. Darwin’s supporters, starting with the ubiquitous Thomas Henry Huxley, beated it from the pulpit as evidence in favour, while his opponents attempted to strip the griffin-like creature of all its intermediary characteristics, defining it as either an outright bird or reptile, or something else altogether. Some of them even sought to attack Archaeopteryx, and thereby the principle of evolution itself, by questioning its authenticity.

The central hypothesis of the proposed research is, that Archaeopteryx, from its initial discovery to the present day, has turned into an icon in favour of Darwin’s theory of evolution and that this has had far-reaching consequences for public as well as scientific attitude towards the fossil.

This requires a focus on both the scientific and popular spheres. As a public object, Archaeopteryx has mainly been important in explaining and proving the principles of Darwinian evolution to a wider and more generally educated audience. We should not forget that its impact on late-nineteenth-century audiences will have been markedly more significant than on those of today. Firstly, because the scientific discourse, particularly in biology and palaeontology, took place much more within the public sphere. But also because science played a far greater role in determining the average citizen’s world view and moral scope. As an indication of its iconic status, we can see Archaeopteryx appearing in painting, literature, even music. The reason for this must be twofold. On the one hand, obviously, because of its pivotal role in the scientific debate, but also because of the fact that the image of the fossil and its meaning appear to correspond so perfectly. In other words: Archaeopteryx works both as an icon and as a representative image – the best piece of propaganda evolution could have wished for. Moreover, it has become part of the canon of past life on earth, next to such quintessential extinct animals as the Mammoth, the sabre-toothed cat, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. But unlike these, Archaeopteryx’ role in evolution is still a matter of heated debate. The bird continues to ruffle feathers to this day. And its role in the scientific debate has therefore been markedly more complex, focussing on two factors: the transition of one animal class (or rather of the typical traits of that class) to another, and the development of complex structures and behavioural patterns (wings and flight, respectively). Especially this last issue has been of crucial for the development of evolutionary thought. Because of its fame, discussions around these issues have tended to focus on Archaeopteryx, using it as the key to proving or disproving scientific hypotheses. Even as a scientific object, Archaeopteryx is far too public to be treated casually. The scientific debate has brought forth all kinds of works on the importance of Archaeopteryx for evolutionary issues and on determining the precise development of terrestrial life. A proper understanding of these discussions will require a certain amount of biological and paleontological acquaintance. In the chosen context, the public debate is equally important. This concerns the way in which Archaeopteryx was used to carry across a certain message about evolution as a whole. These involve many issues, among which are the creationist polemics of the nineteen-eighties, various accusations of Archaeopteryx as a case of fraud and subsequent refutations, etcetera. The sources involve the mass media, articles in popular literature, and popular books. Especially educational textbooks and children’s books give a good insight into what is held as ‘common ground’ in a certain field, both because of the (on average) limited specific knowledge of the authors and because of commercial demands that tend to rule out controversiality

Research questions

The first question addresses the relation between the scientific community and the public, that has seen a clear shift since the late nineteenth century. In Darwin’s days, the discussion of evolution used to be very much a public one, which was treated not only in scientific journals but even more vehemently in popular newspapers. Like the other sciences, palaeontology has witnessed a trend towards growing specialisation, which has demanded its toll in public participation and understanding. In what way can we get an insight into the relation between science and the public through the issues of evolution, palaeontology and the origin of birds? Also, what differences can we distinguish between the ways in which What has been the importance the science of palaeontology has had for the development of evolutionary thought? Archaeopteryx serves as a logical point of entry, because it has been pivotal in all speculations around the origins of birds and flight since its discovery in 1861. Perhaps even more important, because of the crucial timing of this discovery it has served as a public icon of the very idea of evolution. What, then, was the way in which the scientific community tried to carry across this piece of evidence. And, bearing this in mind, what consequences did that status have for the scientific treatment of the Archaeopteryx specimens and the discussion of bird origins? The study of the origin of birds has been crucially important in explaining and investigating certain aspects of evolution, and it is in this area also that palaeontology has played a major role. Natural selection and heredity can be observed in the static situation of present-day nature. Common ancestry and adaptational developments can not, and require palaeontological support. The matter of bird origins has been pivotal in recognising the mechanisms at work in these processes.

Method

A subject of this kind should be approached through the discourse within the scientific community and that between that community and the public. The study of scientific and popular literature will therefore make up the main part of this study. Archaeopteryx’ role as an icon of Darwinist evolution often implies a certain entanglement of both: for creationists, for instance, attacking the status of Archaeopteryx means attacking one of the cornerstones of palaeontological evidence in favour of evolution. The discourse of Archaeopteryx’ place in nature and evolution will be our guideline through the maze of evolutionary discussions. That will mean that certain issues in the development of evolutionary thought will be highlighted at the expense of others. However, with the ‘wing paradox’ we have hit at one of the most consistent, and most complicated, problems of evolution: the generation of evolutionary change. It is this issue that has haunted Darwin’s defence from the first moment, and in the discussion of bird origins we can witness the scientists’ effort to cope with it. However, it should be avoided to limit ourselves to a type of ‘tunnel vision’ that merely discusses developments within palaeontological science. The contextualisation of this subject should involve its place within the general framework of the sciences, as well as the social environment in which these developments took place. For instance, fundamentalist religious attitudes towards evolution can be noticed in the late nineteenth and the late twentieth century, but they widely differ in character. Archival sources may offer an additional insight into the (published) scientific discussions of bird origins, and should serve to provide a background to the literary discourse. Moreover, they will be helpful in determining the intellectual context in which these discussions took place. It is this context that will enable us to assess the positions of public and scientific community vis-à-vis one another, as well as within that community. Relevance The theory of evolution forms an important part of the intellectual and scientific fabric of our society. It is beyond question, that Darwin’s ideas have had a great impact inside and outside the world of science to this day. In the words of philosopher Daniel Dennett:

“From the moment of the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, Charles Darwin’s fundamental idea has inspired intense reactions ranging from ferocious condemnation to ecstatic allegiance, sometimes tantamount to religious zeal. [...] Almost no one is indifferent to Darwin, and no one should be. [...] Darwin’s dangerous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than many of its sophisticated apologists have yet admitted, even to themselves”.

Although Darwin initially carefully avoided any reference to human origins, the inference that the human race had also originated from some other form of life must have been inescapable. The very concept of evolution was therefore highly relativist of man’s central place in nature. Inevitably, one of the main proponents of anthropocentrism, the church, sought to eradicate this apparent heresy. It is hardly surprising that religious movements have incessantly attempted to discredit evolutionism since it first cropped up. This antagonism between religious and scientific thought will consequently remain an important aspect of this study. The history of palaeontology has received only minor attention in comparison to other branches of the history of science, such as mathematics and physics. The history of early nineteenth-century French palaeontology, say, the Lamarck-Cuvier era, has been comparatively well served, but relatively few accounts of later developments exist. This is not the case for the history of evolution. The reception of evolutionary ideas in the western world has been dealt with extensively, although most works focus upon its collision with religious beliefs, and are therefore as much part of social as of scientific history. What I propose to add to the current discussion is a targeted inquiry into the role of one -important- aspect of a single discipline on the debate on evolution.