The colossal stranger. Andrew Carnegie and Diplodocus intrude European Culture, 1904-1912
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Feature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2
The colossal stranger. Andrew Carnegie and
Diplodocus intrude European Culture, 1904–1912
Ilja Nieuwland
Huygens Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences, Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5, 2595BE Den Haag,
The Netherlands
Unquestionably, the tank resembles an armadillo, a safely ensconced in Pittsburgh.2 However, although this
caterpillar, a diplodocus, a motor car, and a traveling was the most complete sauropod dinosaur skeleton found
circus. It has more feet than a caterpillar, and they so far, there were still some bones missing. Holland there-
have steel toenails which take it over the ground; its fore sent O.A. Peterson back to Wyoming in early 1900,
hide is more resistant than an armadillo’s, and its and he found another, smaller specimen. After Diplodo-
beauty of form would make the diplodocus jealous. No cus, several more dinosaurs were discovered in its vicinity:
pianist was ever more temperamental; no tortoise Apatosaurus (often referred to popularly as Bronto-
ever more phlegmatic (Palmer, 1917, 26). saurus), Camarasaurus, and Stegosaurus, to name just
Thus, the American war correspondent Frederick Pal- a few animals that were destined to become important
mer (1873–1958) recalled the impressions which the tanks parts of the dinosaur canon.
of the First World War left on him. His choice of analogies Yet although the remains were impressive and more
is telling, but not unique; particularly the description of complete than any large dinosaur found until then, they
tanks as ‘Diplodocuses’ appears to have been common in were hardly revolutionary. What propelled Diplodocus to
the trenches.1 Over time, these massive dinosaurs came to stardom took place briefly after a description of the species
signify much of the impression that had been left by the had been published, in 1901, by John Bell Hatcher.3 Writ-
first tanks: powerful, yet ungainly; vigorous but devoid of ing in 1930, William Holland recounted the conversation
intelligence. Palmer’s connection of the Diplodocus with that took place between the English King Edward VII and
beauty is actually quite exceptional. But the most signifi- Carnegie. In all its colourfulness it shows as much about
cant fact is that the animal had apparently become such a the way in which an American presumed upper-class
well-known beast that soldiers of various nationalities Britons conversed as it does about the contents of the
could all understand its similarity to the armoured vehicle conversation:
in the first place. The king saw the sketch [of the Diplodocus’ skeleton]
No one was more responsible for the beast’s notoriety and, adjusting his glasses stepped forward, exclaim-
than the Scottish-born steel baron Andrew Carnegie ing: ‘‘I say Carnegie, what in the world is this?’’ Mr.
(1835–1919) (Figure 1). A man of grand gestures, he had Carnegie replied, ‘‘The hugest quadruped that ever
fostered an interest in grand animals for some time in walked the earth, a namesake of mine.’’ We had
addition to other equally ambitious interests, which already published a preliminary description and
included, to his mind, single-handedly securing world had named the animal in honor of Mr. Carnegie,
peace. When he opened his copy of the New York Journal Diplodocus carnegiei [sic]. ‘‘Oh! I say, Carnegie’’
in November 1898, he was greeted by the image of a replied the King, ‘‘we must have one of these in the
dinosaur peeping into the tenth storey of a skyscraper. British Museum’’ (Holland, 1930, 84).
The newspaper, one of the more lurid examples of ‘yellow
The King was referring to a reconstruction of Diplodo-
journalism’, reported the find of the ‘Most colossal animal
cus’ skeletal remains, taken from Hatcher’s paper, hanging
ever on earth’ in the American west. Carnegie immediately
on the wall of the drawing room at Skibo castle. Carnegie
cabled the director of his natural history collections, Wil-
may have hinted that it might be possible to procure
liam Holland (1848–1932), with the order to secure such an
another specimen for setting up in the British Museum
animal for his museum.
(Natural History). At least, that was what he queried
Having received Carnegie’s order and bolstered by a
Holland about a few days later. Of course, Holland knew
generous stipend, Holland assembled a veritable ‘dream-
that the chances of finding a similar animal in similar
team’ of fossil-hunters and sent them west to go prospect-
condition were remote, and immediately set about chan-
ing in Wyoming. After an initial lack of success, William H.
ging his patron’s mind. Instead, he suggested, the British
Reed along with Holland’s aides Arthur Coggeshall and
might be plied with a plaster copy of the bones that were
Jacob Wortman were able to report the discovery of the
available in Pittsburgh, rather than the real thing.
first skeleton of what was to become Diplodocus carnegii
Holland himself had been a newcomer to the field of
on July 4, 1899. By the end of the year the bones were
vertebrate palaeontology in 1899; and although he might
have learnt a thing or two about bones, had he been an
Corresponding author: Nieuwland, I. (ilja.nieuwland@huygensinstituut.knaw.nl)
1
See, for instance Holmes (1918). Holmes seems unaware of the meaning of the expert in the field of plaster casting he might have realised
word Diplodocus, but reports that it is used by his fellow soldiers.
2 3
For an excellent and detailed account of this episode, see Rea (2001). Hatcher (1901).
www.sciencedirect.com 0160-9327/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2010.04.001
62 Feature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2
Figure 1. The Paris Diplodocus, virtually unaltered since it was built up in 1908.
Photograph by the author.
that casting so many objects of such size was a task hardly Figure 2. The Sketch, April 12, 1905.
less daunting than finding a new specimen. A small army of
plasterers, most of them Italians, was hired to manufacture
moulds from the original bones and prepare the cast, under biologist and a staunch defender of Charles Darwin in
the direction of chief preparator Arthur Coggeshall. And the past, also attended because of personal interest. After
while housing the regular collections and staff in the thanking Carnegie, he continued to comment on the
cramped premises of the Carnegie Museum had been pro- animal’s enormous size – and tiny head. But feeling was
blematic (a new building was under construction, but would not so favourable amongst everyone. The museum’s direc-
not be finished until 1907),4 also fitting in what quickly tor, E. Ray Lankester, could not resist hinting that, with so
became a horde of plasterers proved nearly impossible.5 many British dinosaurs around, there was little need to
A preliminary mount was prepared and erected, for add an American one. This may also have been part of the
want of a better location, in the Western Pennsylvania reason why it was placed in South Kensington’s Hall of
Exposition Society in downtown Pittsburgh. By doing so, Reptiles rather than the Hall of Palaeontology.
the Pittsburghers narrowly beat their colleagues from New But that really was the only note of discord. The press
York’s American Museum of Natural History, whose ‘Bron- immediately seized the animal; what seemed to impress
tosaurus’ was mounted months later. them most, as it had Avebury, was its size – the largest
British dinosaur was after all, as The Daily Graphic noted,
Fame ‘some twenty feet shorter and three feet lower’ (Figure 2).6
It took the Pittsburghers the better part of a year to London’s lively satirical magazines had a field day: The
manufacture the casts, ship them to London and have Sketch saw a Diplodocus fad on the horizon, while Punch
them mounted. But Carnegie‘s London copy was unveiled held the opinion that in exchange for the Diplodocus the
amidst pomp and circumstance in the Hall of Reptiles of Americans might appreciate a copy of Ray Lankester. But
the British Museum on May 12, 1905. Although Carnegie the contrast between the animal’s size and its perceived
was present, His Majesty was not; Baron Avebury served intelligence was not lost on them as well, and helped to
as the King‘s replacement. Avebury, having been a cement the impression of slow, plodding creatures that
possessed more bulk than was good for them. The public’s
4
Brinkman (2009), p. 24.
5 6
See Brinkman (in press). Also see Rea (2001). Anon. (1905).
www.sciencedirect.com
Feature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2 63
reaction left little doubt as well: immediately, and American was devoted to it, which described in detail the
Lankester’s scepticism notwithstanding, Diplodocus way in which the animal had been prepared and would be
became one of the museum’s most popular exhibits. But erected. It was unveiled in a festive ceremony on October
it was not only the popular press that was interested – the 13, 1907. Frankfurt had pipped Berlin to the post, even if
professional scientific community was not blind to the the display left something to be desired and their Diplo-
significance of the event. docus longus was quite a bit smaller than the one Berlin
The original from which the London copy had been cast was anticipating. But the Frankfurt public did not care; in
was unveiled in the new Carnegie Museum in April 1907. their masses they flocked to gawk at the museum’s new
Amongst those present, beside Carnegie, Holland, and acquisition.
various other dignitaries, were representatives from both It is difficult to determine with certainty whether this
the German Kaiser and the French president. After an influenced the remarkable lack of pomp and circumstance
exchange of presents, Carnegie ordered Holland to prepare that surrounded the unveiling of Carnegie’s donation to the
additional casts for the museums in Berlin and Paris. Of Kaiser barely a year later. The satirical weekly Kladder-
course, some competition ensued between the rival nations adatsch made mention of the ‘wandering friend’ Diplodo-
as to who was to receive their Diplodocus first. The French cus, but also noted how it acted as a vehicle for Carnegie to
delegation, which remained interested but non-committal further his relations with the ‘crowned heads’. And though
for a long time, soon found themselves overtaken by the Holland might have been celebrated at a dinner in the
Germans, who had immediately proposed a time path and opulent surroundings of the Hotel Adlon on May 14,
a date, and thus sealed the deal. The Berlin skeleton would neither Carnegie nor the Kaiser made an appearance.10
be the first one to be erected, followed one month later by The popular weekly Die Woche, who had initially (but,
the Paris copy. apparently, without success) been requesting a photo shoot
of Holland beside the animal, devoted a few pages to the
Frankfurt first Carnegie Museum’s paleontological collections, which
But again, the rivalry between the Carnegie Museum and made remarkably little mention of Diplodocus.11
the American Museum of Natural History would become a About a month later, Holland discovered that the French
part of Diplodocus’ history. While Holland was dealing approached the unveiling rather differently. A whole hoard
with casting the copies that needed to be delivered to of dignitaries put in an appearance, headed by none other
Berlin and Paris, the American Museum shipped nothing than the President de la Republique, Edouard Faillières.
less than an original Diplodocus to Frankfurt’s Sencken- Holland was bestowed with the Légion d’Honneur, and
berg Museum.7 The gift was the result of the friendship Coggeshall made an Officer of Public Instruction. As a con-
between the American Museum’s director, Morris K. sequence, the French press devoted much more column
Jesup, and Jacob H. Schiff. Schiff had assisted the Amer- space to it than their German colleagues had done the month
ican Museum in negotiations to display part of the famous before, and as much in the society pages as in the scientific
Frankfurt Herbarium Senckenbergianum in New York; the reports. Paris’s newspapers were positively rhapsodic about
Diplodocus was a token of Jesup’s appreciation for Schiff’s the animal and the event, even if they could not resist taking
home town of Frankfurt. a stab at some of the dignitaries present. Le Matin saw more
At the time, the Senckenberg was the only institution in than one ‘heavy and stupid animal’ roaming the museum,
Germany that could rival the Berlin Museum für Natur- and took the opportunity to make merry with the Fallierus
kunde in terms of scientific as well as public pre-eminence. elyseensis.
Jesup’s shipment consisted of a number of Diplodocus bones, More requests from European dignitaries found their
essentially leftovers from the AMNH’s Wyoming expedition way to Carnegie, who was only too eager to honour them.
which by no means made up a complete skeleton.8 However, For the next four years, Holland spent much of his time
both problems of presentation and construction were solved preparing copies to ship to European museums: to
by encasing the bones in a framework of wooden and plaster Vienna in late 1908, to Bologna in 1909 and to St.
boxes – twenty-three in total, weighing 7.3 metric tons. Petersburg and Madrid in 1910. And everywhere he
Missing bones, mainly in the tail and neck, were drawn went accompanied by Coggeshall and 32–36 crates of
in to create the illusion of a complete skeleton. That also Diplodocus parts. But the most adventurous expedition
made final assembly much easier because it entailed little was to take place in 1912, when Carnegie’s circus landed
more than stacking the boxes in the right order.9 in the Museo de la Plata in Argentina, just east of Buenos
The donation was well advertised, both the American Aires. Holland wrote about his experiences in his book To
Museum and the Senckenberg calling in favours from the the River Plate and Back, which met with some success
press. In the United States an entire issue of Scientific upon its release in 1913.
After that, things remained quiet for some time, due to
7
Most of these were ‘spares’ from the AMNH’s expeditions to Wyoming in the
the death of Andrew Carnegie in August of 1919 and, of
1890s. course, the outbreak of the First World War. However, in
8
Later examination has shown that not even all the bones in the original skeleton 1932 Carnegie’s widow Louise was persuaded to donate
were Diplodocus, with bits of its close relatives Apatosaurus and Barosaurus mixed in.
See Sachs (2001), p. 140.
another copy of Diplodocus to the Mexico City natural
9
Although this proved to be an efficient method in the short term, it made things history museum, and two years later a final plaster cast
quite difficult when, in 1920, the museum decided to show its Diplodocus in a more
10
conventional, ‘Holland-like’ mount. Because of the skeleton’s incompleteness, pre- ‘‘Vermischtes’’, Frankfurter Zeitung, 15 May 1908; ‘‘Carnegie won’t be there’’, New
parators had to introduce other material, not only from other specimens of Diplodocus York Times, 10 May 1908.
11
but also of its relative Camarasaurus. Holland (1908).
www.sciencedirect.com
64 Feature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2
Figure 3. The position of the Paris Diplodocus’ tail. Photograph by the author.
was shipped off to the Paläontologische Staatssammlung Hawkins – again – to turn to an extrapolated iguana’s
in Munich, in exchange for a large collection of German skull instead.
fossils.12 Hawkins had been forced to invent his method as he
went along, mainly because of the fragmentary nature of
The exhibit many of the fossils he had to work with. This changed
From the outset, sauropods had been portrayed as lum- rather dramatically in 1878, when Belgian miners discov-
bering, none-too-bright, but surprisingly elephant-like ered a herd of Iguanodon fossils in a coal mine near the
creatures, with pillar-like legs that supported their huge town of Bernissart. Suddenly, instead of the usual jumble
bodies. Yet the first dinosaurs ever to be restored to what of fragments, scholars could pick from literally dozens of
was considered to be a life-like posture had used entirely nearly complete fossils. Many of the Iguanodons remains
different role models. Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins’ were found as complete, articulated skeletons. These close
sculpture of Iguanodon, which graced the Crystal Palace relatives of Hadrosaurus again proved that previous
from 1852 onwards, looked, as its name suggested, like an lizard-like models had been incorrect and that these dino-
oversized and overfed iguana lizard. Its companion Mega- saurs had adopted a posture in life that had no parallel in
losaurus had not been quite so overtly reptilian, but extant nature.
rather appeared to be permanently shrugging its The chief excavator, Louis Dollo (1857–1931) faced the
shoulders. The remains on which these reconstructions task of erecting these in a more or less life-like position in
had been based were fragmentary, and Richard Owen, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brus-
Hawkins’ supervisor, had simply extrapolated contem- sels. Using an elaborate system of ropes, wooden beams,
porary animals. and pulleys, the Iguanodon bones were hoisted up and then
For Waterhouse Hawkins, the problem of posture hammered into place with wedges.
became an acute one when he was asked, in 1868, to erect For all the innovation that it brought, the system
the world’s first mounted dinosaur skeleton in the Phila- adopted by Dollo did have its disadvantages. For one thing,
delphia Academy of Natural Sciences’ museum. Although it proved to be nearly impossible to disassemble the
the remains of this Hadrosaurus foulkii were not complete, mounts without damaging them.13 Also, it was quite labour
the large difference in size between the animal’s legs and intensive. From the beginning it was clear that this method
arms did seem to indicate that it had been bipedal, and would not do for Diplodocus, but luckily Arthur Coggeshall,
therefore not really comparable to his earlier work in Holland’s chief preparator, had other examples to turn to,
London. Instead of sculpting its life image, as he had done most of all the work done in the Department of Vertebrate
earlier, Hawkins reconstructed the animal’s skeleton. Palaeontology at the American Museum of Natural
However, the absence of Hadrosaurus’ skull caused History.14 But even with these examples, Coggeshall
13
For this reason, the Brussels Iguanodons still stand as Dollo’s men erected them.
However, after one hundred and thirty years, the mounts themselves can be said to be
12
This copy survived the devastations of the Second World War, but it was never museum objects illustrating an important step in the display of fossil animals.
14
mounted. Brinkman (2009).
www.sciencedirect.comFeature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2 65
had to develop an entirely new technique to facilitate his those in the employ of Andrew Carnegie. However, as more
travelling dinosaur. He constructed a new skeleton made and more copies were distributed throughout the Euro-
up of forged steel rods, in which the cast bones could be pean peninsula, Diplodocus was increasingly being appro-
positioned.15 Not only was this much quicker to set up, the priated by the Europeans, who were not always prepared
display could also easily be disassembled, adapted and re- to take the Americans at their word. Moreover, one cannot
assembled. escape the impression that, as with Edward Ray Lanke-
Paul Brinkman typifies Holland as a director of the ‘kick ster, many European scientists were divided between
downstairs, lick upstairs’ school: short-tempered and flip- gratitude for the gift and condescension towards the par-
pant towards his subordinates, and somewhat of a syco- venu from whom they had to accept it.
phant when dealing with the likes of Andrew Carnegie and Enter the German zoologist Gustav Tornier, whose
other dignitaries. Likewise, Holland was all too eager to unfortunate fate it has become to be chiefly remembered
please his European hosts when it came to determining because of the ridicule heaped upon him by several gener-
Diplodocus’s posture: ations of paleontologists as a consequence of this issue. Yet
Tornier was an able but also acerbic zoologist who played
‘‘The authorities of the National Museum in Paris
an important role in the organisation of science in the
finding that the space which they had at their com-
German capital in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
mand was very limited, requested me to give to the
tail of the Diplodocus a considerable curvature, and I Unlike Hay, whose attitude had been critical but construc-
have conformed with their request. I feel that this tive, Tornier’s tone was not conciliatory. Here was a clash
modification detracts somewhat from the impression not only of nationality, but also of conflicting academic
which the specimen produces in the mind of the traditions. Tornier took issue with the anatomical infer-
observer and only adopted it in view of the exigencies ences made by Hatcher and, following him, Holland. He
of the case. Should it, however, be desirable for you to produced a point-by-point comparative analysis of the
resort to a similar expedient for any reason whatever, animal, and arrived at the conclusion, as Hay had done,
I request you to notify me at once so that the necess- that it must have adopted a monitor lizard-like posture,
ary changes which will have to be made in the dis- with its tail functioning as an ‘anchoring device’ to prevent
position of the caudal vertebrae can be immediately the animal from floating away.17
undertaken’’.16 But what really had to sting was the accusation levelled
at the Americans that they had in fact produced something
To some degree, Holland should be forgiven for his which could not stand up to proper scientific examination.
concessions, since he and Coggeshall had to work with Tornier explicitly chastised Holland for letting opportu-
local people, and could not easily adapt their surroundings nism get in the way of proper science when deciding on how
(Figure 3). While most of the assembling went smoothly, the animal had been exhibited:
this sometimes caused problems, most of all in communi-
cation and in dealing with local customs. One such pro- That the Diplodocus must have been able to raise his
blem, the re-telling of which neither Holland nor later neck vertically, is something Mr. Holland already
writers have been able to resist, occurred when assembling assumed. [. . .] The reason why the present position
the St. Petersburg Diplodocus. After the local labourers was chosen for the restoration was to make the skull
had accidentally dropped the rod holding the animal’s and neck vertebrae more visible to the visitor (Tor-
backbone and nearly killed Holland, he and Coggeshall nier, 1909b, 206). My translation.
spent weeks gluing the remains together. Here, like in As we have seen, the charge itself was not wholly with-
Paris, the tail would be laid in a curve to make the cast fit out foundation. But Holland had never been one to respond
inside the Imperial Museum’s hall. The size and weight of very gingerly to overt criticism.18 Furthermore, Tornier’s
the animal was a problem everywhere; not only had they article was imbued with a cynicism that could hardly help
forced Coggeshall to invent an entirely new way of casting to soften the blow.19 Holland, who really had played no role
bones, they also forced the sort of concessions such as the in deciding his Diplodocus’ posture (most of the scientific
ones Holland had (perhaps a bit too readily) made in Paris work, after all, had been done by Hatcher), now saw his
and St. Petersburg. work of the last five years undermined by foreign forces.
His response to Tornier was in kind:
A matter of posture
Already before the unveiling in 1905, doubts had been It was a bold step for him immediately to transfer the
raised by visitors of the British museum [assuming that creature from the order Dinosauria, and evidently
it’s in fact the Natural History Museum, see earlier] speci- with the skeleton of a Varanus or Chameleon before
men, but it was an American, Oliver Hay, who really put him, to proceed with the help of a pencil, the powerful
the boot in 1908, when he suggested that Diplodocus’s tool of the closet-naturalist, to reconstruct the
elephantine posture owed more to the reconstructor’s skeleton upon the study of which two generations
imagination than to reality. But with fame came import-
ance. By this time Diplodocus had become a source of 17
Tornier (1909b), p. 205.
18
In the past, Holland’s belligerence had alienated more than one of his collabor-
national pride to American scientists, and particularly to
ators, most importantly Diplodocus co-discoverer Jacob Wortman. See Brinkman
(in press) and Rea (2001).
15 19
Krishtalka (1988), pp. 15–16. See Tornier (1909a,b). Those expecting a dry Teutonic riposte will be surprised:
16
Holland to Brauer, 9.2.1908. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Archives, Earl Tornier’s writings are eloquent, sharp and sometimes outright funny – but they must
Douglass Papers pp. 1894–1931. have been the more infuriating because of that.
www.sciencedirect.com66 Feature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2
Figure 4. Parts of the Frankfurt Diplodocus, identified by Othenio Abel (1910). Reproduced with kind permission of the Frankfurt Senckenberg Museum of Natural History.
of American paleontologists have expended consider- end, however, work on the museum’s colossal Brachio-
able time an labor, and squeeze the animal into the saurus recently dug up in German East Africa and World
form which his brilliantly illuminated imagination War I prevented realisation of these plans.
suggested (Holland, 1910, 202). But things evolved rather differently in the case of
Germany’s other Diplodocus, Jesup’s gift to Frankfurt
With all their ad hominems and innuendos, these lines
(Figure 4). As we saw, The Senckenberg Museum’s Diplo-
effectively carry across the personal indignation that Hol-
docus longus had been removed from its wooden boxes in
land must have felt; as Tornier concluded: ‘it had all
1920 and, with some creativity on the part of preparator
become properly messy’. Holland furthermore asserted
Christian Strunz and the addition of a fair few other
that it was Tornier’s reconstruction that stretched ana-
sauropod bones (mostly Camarasaurus), turned into a fully
tomical reality, not his own. It was impossible to fit the leg
three-dimensional mount. Initially, the animal had been
bones into their sockets in the way Tornier had suggested,
constructed much like Holland’s dinosaurs, albeit with a
and a giant lizard-like Diplodocus would have needed a
much more vertical scapula. However, when Strunz re-
gutter to move in because its ribcage was so deep.20
mounted the animal in 1934, he left it in a semi-reptilian
But Holland received some support from the European
state.22 Strunz chose to show the animal on its hind legs,
continent as well. Marcellin Boule, who had been a pro-
reaching for the water surface. This was a clever way to
minent guest at the unveiling of the Paris Diplodocus,
avoid an all-too-explicit choice with regard to either a
downplayed Tornier’s argument most of all by pointing
reptile-like or a mammal-like posture (Figure 5).
at his inexperience compared to Holland’s. Vienna’s Othe-
nio Abel came down on Holland’s side, and Frankfurt’s
Big science meets big business
Fritz Drevermann – after all, the proud owner of a real
Carnegie’s main agenda in the early-twentieth-century
Diplodocus – could also not resist chiming in. But while
was the promotion of world peace, and we ought to see
Drevermann concurred with Tornier’s conclusions about
the donation of Diplodocus in that light. Apart from filling
the animal’s legs, he disagreed about the neck, which
his need for personal recognition – which certainly played a
Tornier maintained was bent in an s-like curve. But Dre-
role – Carnegie perceived that the best way was to exert
vermann did take issue with Tornier’s flippant attitude
personal influence, and so pacify, the ‘crowned heads of
towards his American colleagues:
Europe’. Plying them with impressive dinosaurs, and so
[. . .] that they who, after all, mount dinosaurs by the allowing them to curry favour with the public on their
dozen, would have no understanding of the reptilian respective domestic fronts, was one of the means in that
skeleton, is highly unlikely.21 campaign. But there are other factors at play, too. One was
the enlightenment of the people, which had long been an
But while hereafter Tornier apparently decided not to
object of Carnegie’s philanthropy. Like the libraries and
pursue the case in print, the issue had gotten beyond the
educational institutions he financed, Diplodocus came to
stage in which scientific arguments mattered. The German
offer the public insight into contemporary science of the
Kaiser, Wilhelm II, who had shown hardly any interest in
kind Carnegie could identify with himself.
the animal when it was first erected, took it upon himself to
A final element that needs pointing out is one that has
visit the Berlin museum to see whether its Diplodocus
already been studied more deeply by Paul Semonin, and
might be repositioned in a more ‘German’ fashion. On the
concerns the identification of dinosaurs with dominance.
morning of March 14, 1912, Wilhelm met with Tornier and
Semonin argues that commentators, inspired by social
others to inspect the fossil and to discuss remounting
Darwinist ideas, typically use the language of empire
Diplodocus to reflect a more lizard-like posture. In the
and autocratic rule to describe the dominance of these
animals over the rest of the natural world.23 Press coverage
20
Holland (1910). For a more extensive treatment of Holland’s arguments, also see of the London and Paris unveilings uses similar language:
Desmond (1975) and Parsons (2003), pp. 77–81.
21
‘‘Und daß die, welche doch die Dinosaurier – ich möchte sagen – dutzendweise
‘A mighty Gift’, ‘Colossal stranger’, ‘The greatest of rep-
montieren, so gar keine Kenntnis vom Reptilienskelett haben sollten, ist doch höchst tiles’. In a way, Carnegie was Diplodocus: the mighty man,
unwahrscheinlich’’. Drevermann as cited in (Tornier, 1909a), 507. My translation.
Drevermann goes on to state in another publication that ‘‘‘many models and images of
22
extinct animals are documents of a lively imagination rather than serious scientific Strunz (1936); see also Sachs (2001).
23
labour’’. (Drevermann, 1911), pp. 276. Semonin (1997). Also see Semonin (2000), pp. 406–411.
www.sciencedirect.comFeature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2 67
Figure 5. Christian Strunz, Models for the reconstruction of the Frankfurt Diplodocus (1934). Reproduced with kind permission of the Frankfurt Senckenberg Museum of
Natural History.
risen from paupers in order to dominate the world around By 1911, Carnegie’s gifts had created a situation in
him, just like the dinosaur reigned over the temples of which one could find a Diplodocus in his own home of
culture in which Carnegie had put him. The similarity Pittsburgh, and virtually every major capital on the Euro-
between the present and its donor was certainly not lost on pean continent. For millions of people, it was the first ‘real’
contemporaries. dinosaur that they saw. In a world that was not, like ours,
so saturated with images of these animals, its effect was
far-reaching. From 1905 onwards, we see Diplodocus
become a part of popular culture, a synonym for ‘the’
dinosaur, but also a metaphor for all that it was thought
to represent. Writers such as James Joyce, John Kendrick
Bangs, Bram Stoker, Stephen Leacock and a whole slew of
sensationalist adventure writers (including, of course,
Edgar Rice Burroughs) used Diplodocus as a reference,
as an anchor to portray characteristics such as strength,
size, sloth, plodding slowness and stupidity.24 But the way
in which Carnegie had handed the animal to the gawping
masses could not carry everyone’s blessing. The French
writer Octave Mirbeau commented in 1913 on what he saw
as the devaluation of the animal:
Do you think I am not moved sometimes by the
disappearance of the Plesiosaur, and – if I am too
sentimental I apologise – I regret, like a friend done
wrong, to see the famous Diplodocus becoming [. . .]
a vulgar museum object (Mirbeau, 1913, 49–50).
One of the first animated pictures, Winsor McKay’s
Gertie the Dinosaur (1914), featured a Diplodocus
(Figure 6). Significantly, the film’s main character was
called ‘the Dinosaurus’ – indeed, for many people, particu-
larly in Europe, Diplodocus was the dinosaur.
Diplodocus now has become a firm part of the dinosaur-
ian canon, even if it lost some of its early-twentieth-century
pre-eminence. In popular books, museum shops, and TV
documentaries such as the BBC’s Walking With Dinosaurs,
24
Respectively, James Joyce in Ulysses (1922), John Kendrick Bangs in The Auto-
biography of Metuselah (1909), Stephen Leacock in Arcadian Adventures with the Idle
Figure 6. Poster for Gertie the Dinosaur (1914; dir. Winsor McKay). Rich (1914) Bram Stoker in The Lair of the White Worm (1911).
www.sciencedirect.com68 Feature Endeavour Vol.34 No.2
it is still very much present. And even now, the copying of Holland, W.J. (1908) Die paläontologischen Forschungen des
Carnegieinstituts. Die Woche 1908, pp. 951–955
Diplodocus has not ended. Coggeshall’s moulds, worn with
Holland, W.J. (1910) A review of some recent criticisms of the restorations
age, were used again in the 1980s to make one final cast for of sauropod dinosaurs existing in the museums of the United States,
the Utah Field House in Vernal – this time in concrete. with special reference to that of Diplodocus carnegiei in the Carnegie
That opened up the possibility of a whole slew of further Museum. American Naturalist 44, pp. 259–283
copies of this particular copy, which was immediately Holland, W.J. (1930) The Diplodocus goes to Mexico. Carnegie Magazine
IV, pp. 83–86
exploited by the Las Vegas Natural History Museum.
Holmes, R.D. (1918) A Yankee in the Trenches. Little, Brown & Co.,
One of these has been placed in the Las Vegas Natural (Boston)
History Museum, a fitting acquisition for a city which Krishtalka, L. (1988) Body double: duplicating dinosaurs. Carnegie
specialises in the grand, albeit not always very sophisti- Magazine, pp. 12–20
cated, reproduction. Since then Diplodocus has continued Mirbeau, O. (1913) Dingo. Preface de Pierre Michel. Fasquelle, (Paris)
Palmer, F. (1917) My Second Year of the War. Dodd. Mead & Co., (New
to proliferate. Andrew Carnegie would have been thrilled. York)
Parsons, K. (2003) The Great Dinosaur Controversy: A Guide to the
Acknowledgments Debates. ABC-Clio, (New York)
Thanks go out to Paul Brinkman, Matthijs de Ridder, Marieke van der Rea, T. (2001) Bone Wars. The Excavation and Celebrity of Andrew
Duin, Mark Thomas and Huib Zuidervaart for various forms of Carnegie’s Dinosaur. University of Pittsburgh Press, (Pittsburgh)
assistance. Sachs, S. (2001) Diplodocus - Ein Sauropode aus dem Oberen Jura
(MOrrison-Formation) Nordamerikas. Natur und Museum 131, pp.
References 133–150
Anon. (1905) Welcome colossal stranger. The Daily Graphicp. 5 Semonin, P. (1997) Empire and Extinction: the Dinosaur as a Metaphor for
Brinkman, P.D. (2009) Modernizing American fossil preparation at the Dominance in Prehistoric Nature. Leonardo 30, pp. 171–182
turn of the 20th century. Methods in Fossil Preparation: Proceedings Semonin, P. (2000) American Monster. How the Nation’s First Prehistoric
of the First Annual Fossil Preparation and Collections Symposium, Creature Became a Symbol of National Identity. New York University
pp. 21–34 Press, (New York & London)
Brinkman, P.D. (in press) The Second American Jurassic dinosaur rush, Strunz, C. (1936) Unsere Donner-Echse (Diplodocus) in neuer Haltung.
1895–1905. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London. Natur und Volk 66, pp. 371–379
Desmond, A. (1975) The Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs. A Revolution in Tornier, G. (1909) Ernstes und lustiges aus Kritiken über meine
Palaeontology. The Dial Press Diplodocusarbeit/War der Diplodocus Elefantenfüssig.
Drevermann, F. (1911) Der Diplodocus. Berichte der Senckenbergische Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu
Naturforschungsgesellschaft 42, pp. 272–282 Berlin, pp. 505–556
Hatcher, J.B. (1901) Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and Tornier, G. (1909) Wie war der Diplodocus carnegii wirklich gebaut?
probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu
Carnegie Museum 1, pp. 1–63 Berlin, pp. 193–209
www.sciencedirect.comYou can also read
