Disruptions and changing habits: The case of the Tendaguru expedition

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes one of the biggest paleontological expeditions at the turn of the twentieth century. The Tendaguru expedition in the South of German East Africa, today’s Tanzania, took place from 1909 to 1913. Organised by Berlin’s Museum für Naturkunde, the expedition took advantage of the German colonial enterprise, unearthing and transporting over 225 tons of fossils to Berlin. Among them were the bones of what eventually became the biggest mounted dinosaur in the world: Brachiosaurus brancai. This paper focuses on the issues that interrupted or delayed the visible outcome of the Tendaguru expedition and thus complicated, delayed, or interrupted a supposedly very unproblematic enterprise. By focusing on these complications, this paper aims to give new insights into the history of the Tendaguru expedition and its aftermath. At the same time, this episode in the history of transforming natural objects into objects of natural history serves to show the ways in which disruptions shaped and transformed both paleontological fieldwork and practical work at the museum. Thereby, the paper ultimately calls attention to the complex interactions between disruptions, narratives, and object habits. It further illustrates how museum objects were shaped by misfortunes and adversity, as well as broader institutional, political, and scientific narrations in colonial and post-colonial Germany, thus continuing to reshape the object habits of Brachiosaurus brancai.

KEYWORDS:

• Tendaguru expedition
• dysfunction
• Brachiosaurus brancai
• paleontology
• fieldwork
• natural history objects
• Natural History Museum
• colonialism

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany, (BMBF) collaborative research project: DiB – Dinosaur in Berlin. Brachiosaurus brancai as an Icon of Politics, Science and Popular Culture. The authors would like to thank Alice Stevenson and Emma Libonati for the inspiring conference ‘The Object Habit: legacies of field work and the museum’ as well as the reviewers and editors for their feedback. Thank you also to Yvonne Reimers, Denise Bode, and Bryn Veditz for their precious support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Marco Tamborini holds a PhD. in History and Philosophy of Science from the Ruprecht- Karls-Universität, Heidelberg. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at PAN—Perspektiven auf Natur, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. His research focuses on the history and philosophy of biology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He is particularly interested in the conceptual and institutional history of paleontology.

Mareike Vennen has studied Cultural Studies, Theatre Studies and French Studies in Berlin and Paris. Her thesis examines the early history of the aquarium in nineteenth-century Europe. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the chair of art history at Technische Universität Berlin as part of the project ‘Dinosaurs in Berlin.’ Her research focuses on the history of natural history and ecology in the nineteenth and twentieth century, on the transnational history of knowledge transfers and the visual cultures of popular science.

Notes

1. The German daily newspaper Tägliche Rundschau wrote of a ‘first-class scientific treasure’ in an appeal for funds in 1911. Anonymous, ‘Aufruf,’ Tägliche Rundschau, 15 February 1911. All translations are ours unless otherwise noted.

2. See von Hanseman's speech: ‘these objects are, to a certain extent, of value to the nation, for it is the first time that such finds have been made on German soil’ D. P. von Hanseman, ‘Rede des Herrn Geheimen Medizinalrat Professor Dr. von Hansemann,’ Historische Bild– und Schriftgutsammlungen des Museums für Naturkunde Berlin, 1911, p. 4.

3. E. Hennig, Am Tendaguru. Leben und Wirken einer deutschen Forschungs-Expedition zur Ausgrabung vorweltlicher Riesensaurier in Deutsch-Ostafrika (Stuttgart: Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912), p. 7.

4. A detailed historical reconstruction of this expedition can be found in G. Maier, African Dinosaurs Unearthed: the Tendaguru Expeditions (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2003). For the epistemic, social, and political features of early twentieth-century German natural history see M. Tamborini, ‘‘If the Americans Can Do It, So Can We’: How Dinosaur Bones Shaped German Paleontology,’ History of Science 54 (2016), 225–56.

5. For instance, Hennig wrote: ‘Incidentally, it is tremendously cosy [gemütlich] and comfortable in the camp. The workers and porters have brought their wives and children and are in the process of creating a small village from bamboo and grass.’ E. Hennig,. ‘Aus unserer Kolonie. Die Tendaguru-Expedition’, Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Zeitung, 11 August 1909, p. 2. This exact quotation was reproduced in several newspaper articles while the expedition was still underway. The topos of ‘Gemütlichkeit’ was thus part of the dominant narrative of the expedition from the beginning. See, for instance, Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 32 and E. Hennig, ‘Von der Tendaguru-Expedition,’ Königlich-privilegierte Berlinische Zeitung, 19 June 1909.

6. See for instance E. H. Colbert, Alfred Sherwood Romer 1894–1973 (National Academy of Sciences, 1982). D. E. Fastovsky and D. B. Weishampel, Dinosaurs: A Concise Natural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

7. In doing this, we link our investigation with the literature on scientific practice. We consider science and broadly scientific work as a performative activity, in which the ‘performances—the doings—of human and material agency come to the fore’ A. Pickering,The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 21. See also, S. Macdonald, ed., Collecting Practices. A Companion to Museum Studies (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

8. See, for example, B. Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).

9. S. Gießmann and G. Schabacher, ‘Umwege und Umnutzung oder: Was bewirkt ein ‚Workaround‘?,’ in Umnutzung. Alte Sachen, neue Zwecke, ed. by S. Habscheid and G. Hoch (Göttingen: V&R Unipress 2014), p. 16–7.

10. See the introduction to this issue.

11. E. Hennig, ‘Saurier in Afrika. Erkundungsfahrt durch den ostafrikanischen Busch’, Lux-Lesebogen 1961, p. 3.

12. E. Fraas, ‘Dinosaurier in Deutsch-Ostafrika,’ Umschau, 12 (1908).

13. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 151.

14. L. Daston, ed., Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science (New York: Zone Books, 2004).

15. ‘The bone fragments weathering out of the ground were naturally seldom undamaged, and had mostly been shattered, splintered, or worn away by the rays of the sun and the tropical rainfall.’ Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 26.

16. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 94.

17. ‘Now, at the end of the rainy season, the vegetation has been at its most abundant; its density, as well as the bush and the bamboo undergrowth rendered the porters’ progress arduous … when the grass is at its longest it is often impossible to see one's own feet’. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, pp. 19–20.

18. Hennig wrote of a ‘wondrous primeval jungle, a genuine tropical rainforest. The teeming vegetation seems never-ending as it forces its way through the earth in a bewildering abundance of forms’. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 98.

19. E. Hennig, Hennig Nachlass,Universitätsarchiv Tübingen (UAT), 407, 81.

20. See for example J. Zeller, Bilderschule der Herrenmenschen: koloniale Reklamesammelbilder (Berlin: Links, 2008).

21. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 75.

22. ‘Seemingly attracted by the calcium content of the bones, the fine root filaments would be inclined to grow towards the bones, then force their way in through cracks, splitting apart even substantial pieces. In this respect too, the vegetation, in particular the grass, has proven a terrible obstacle to the excavations’. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 79.

23. ‘The stone, however, mostly loose marl, forms a loose substratum, at least during the rainy season when the entire floor is soaked through to a goodly depth … It was not uncommon to find leg bones broken into three to five pieces, and wide gaps between the segments filled with earth’. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 45.

24. W. Janensch, ‘Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Tendaguru-Expedition 1909–1912,’ Archiv für Biontologie 3 (1914), p. 34.

25. Janensch, ‘Wissenschftliche Ergebnisse‘, p. 34.

26. Janensch, ‘Wissenschftliche Ergebnisse‘, p. 34.

27. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 43.

28. W. Janensch, ‘Verlauf und Ergebnisse der Expedition,’ Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 2 (1912), p. 130.

29. See K. Schmutzer, ‘Metamorphosis between Field and Museum: Collections in the Making 2012,’ in ‘Moved Natural Objects. Spaces in Between,’ ed. by M. Klemun, HOST Journal of History of Science and Technology, 5 (Spring) and R. E. Kohler, ‘Place and Practice in Field Biology.’ History of Science 40 (2002), 189–210.

30. For a broader background on German paleontology and dinosaur research see I. Nieuwland, ‘The Colossal Stranger: Andrew Carnegie and Diplodocus Intrude European Culture,’ Endeavour, 34 (2010), 61–8. M. Tamborini,‘‘If the Americans Can Do It, So Can We’: How Dinosaur Bones Shaped German Paleontology’. M. Tamborini, ‘The Reception of Darwin in late Nineteenth-Century German Paleontology as a Case of Pyrrhic Victory,’ Under review, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.

31. See I. Nieuwland, ‘The Colossal Stranger. A Cultural History of Diplodocus carnegii, 1902–1913,’ University of Groningen (2017).

32. See also C. Kretschmann, ‘Noch ein Nationaldenkmal? Die deutsche Tendaguru-Expedition 1909–1913,’ in Inszenierte Wissenschaft. Zur Popularisierung von Wissen im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by S. Samida (Bielefeld: Transcript, 2011). Tamborini, ‘“If the Americans Can Do It, So Can We”’.

33. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität-Berlin, Chronik der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Für das Rechnungsjahr, Vol. 25 (Halle/Saale: Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, 1912), p. 208.

34. See for instance L. Rieppel,’Bringing Dinosaurs Back to Life: Exhibiting Prehistory at the American Museum of Natural History,’ Isis, 102 (2012), 460–90.

35. These tasks were completed by the two Berlin paleontologists and up to 500 African workers.

36. W. Janensch, ‘The Skeleton Reconstruction of Brachiosaurus Brancai,’ trans. by Gerhard Maier 1950, Palaeontographica VII (I), p. 97.

37. See W. Janensch, ‘Aufstellung der Skelettrekonstruktion des Brachiosaurus,’ Aus der Heimat. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift des deutschen Naturkundevereins, 51 (1938), pp. 124–8.

38. See Janensch, ‘The Skeleton Reconstruction of Brachiosaurus Brancai’.

39. Janensch, ‘The Skeleton Reconstruction of Brachiosaurus Brancai’.

40. Janensch, ‘The Skeleton Reconstruction of Brachiosaurus Brancai’.

41. Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 7.

42. On this dichotomy see, for example, N. Shepherd, ‘When the hand that holds the trowel is black … ,’ Journal of Social Archaeology 3 (2003), 334–52. B. Latour, Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1987).

43. In his travel report, Hennig describes the transfer from the field to the museum as an act of ‘incorporation’ from East Africa into the German institution. See, Hennig, Am Tendaguru, p. 7.

44. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität-Berlin, Chronik der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Für das Rechnungsjahr, Vol. 25 (Halle/Saale: Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, 1911), p. 217.

45. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität-Berlin, Chronik der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, p. 209.

46. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität-Berlin, Chronik der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, pp. 204–5.

47. Anonymous, ‘Die Berliner Tendaguru-Expedition,’Berliner Zeitung am Mittag, 11.08.1911.

48. C. W. F. von Branca, ‘Allgemeines über die Tendaguru-Expeditionm,’ Archiv für Biontologie 3 (1914), p. 8.

49. C. W. F. von Branca, ‘Über die Saurier des Tendaguru. Vortrag, gehalten bei Gelegenheit der Hauptversammlung der Tendaguru-Expedition des köngl. Geologisch-paläontologischen Instituts und Museums für Naturkunde der Universität Berlin am 14. Februar 1911,’ Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift, 10 (1911), p. 278. See also C. Kretschmann, ‘Noch ein Nationaldenkmal? Die deutsche Tendaguru-Expedition 1909–1913’.

50. See also D. P. von Hanseman, ‘Rede des Herrn Geheimen Medizinalrat Professor Dr. von Hansemann’.

51. One of Edwin Hennig's popular talks on the Tendaguru expedition, held at the Urania in March 1912, is recounted in detail by a newspaper article, Anonymous, ‘Die Ausgrabungen der Riesensaurier in Deutsch-Ostafrika,’ Reichsbote, 31 March 1912, p. 3. See also W. Janensch, ‘Verlauf und Ergebnisse der Expedition,’ p. 124.

52. See C. Riggs, ‘Shouldering the past: Photography, archaeology, and collective effort at the tomb of Tutankhamun,’ History of Science, Online first 2016. N. Shepherd, The Mirror in the Ground: Archeology, Photography and the Making of a Disciplinary Archive (Cape Town: Jonathan Ball Publishers and the Centre for Curating the Archive, 2015).

53. C. Kretschmann, ‘Noch ein Nationaldenkmal? Die deutsche Tendaguru-Expedition 1909–1913’.

54. Anonymous, ‘Riesensaurier vom Tendaguru,’ Berliner Illustrierte, 24.11.1933.

55. L. Rieppel,’Bringing Dinosaurs Back to Life: Exhibiting Prehistory at the American Museum of Natural History’.

56. S. Macdonald, ‘Exhibitions of Power and Powers of Exhibition. An Introduction to the Politcs of Display,’ in The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture, ed. by S. Macdonald (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 1.

57. K. Remes et al., ‘Skeletal Reconstruction of Brachiosaurus brancai in the Museum für Naturkunde: Summarizing 70 Years of Saurapods Research,’ in Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: Understanding the Life of Giants, ed. by N. Klein et al. (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Universtiy Press, 2011).

58. The installation of the room was completely revised, see K. Remes et al., ‘Skeletal Reconstruction of Brachiosaurus brancai in the Museum für Naturkunde: Summarizing 70 Years of Saurapods Research’.