Building Baluchitherium and Indricotherium: Imperial and International Networks in Early-Twentieth Century Paleontology

Abstract

Over the first decades of the twentieth century, the fragmentary remains of a huge prehistoric ungulate were unearthed in scientific expeditions in India, Turkestan and Mongolia. Following channels of formal and informal empire, these were transported to collections in Britain, Russia and the United States. While striking and of immense size, the bones proved extremely difficult to interpret. Alternately naming the creature Paraceratherium, Baluchitherium and Indricotherium, paleontologists Clive Forster-Cooper, Alexei Borissiak and Henry Fairfield Osborn struggled over the reconstruction of this gigantic fossil mammal. However, despite these problems, shared work on the creature served as a focus for collaboration and exchange rather than rivalry between these three scientific communities. Not only did the initial interpretation and analysis depend on pre-existing connections between British and American paleontological institutions, but the need for comparative material, recognition and contacts brought British and American scholars into communication and exchange with their counterparts in the Soviet Union. This article examines these processes. It first uses these excavations as a comparative case-study of different manifestations of colonial science in this period, examining how scholars in the Britain, the Russian Empire and the United States used formal and informal colonial links to Asia to pursue new research. It then moves to examine how the common problem of reconstructing this giant animal drew metropolitan scientific communities together, at least for a time. The construction of the Baluchitherium and Indricotherium illustrates the drives to expand research both imperially and internationally in the early-twentieth century, but also the continual problems in resources, institutionalization, transport and communication that could run up against scientific work.

Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity

“…When zoological and botanical specimens were uncovered during colonial expeditions, they were typically shipped back to the respective imperial capitals, to be housed in museums, which were rapidly increasing in numbers to accommodate the influx of material (9,10). Fossils were no exception, and their collection was dominated by imperial systems and exchanges (11). For example, Charles Darwin aboard the HMS Beagle collected fossils in South America that were sent to London and studied by British paleontologists (12).…”

Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity

“…Recently, plankton samples collected from the equatorial Pacific Ocean during the HMS Challenger expedition in the nineteenth century -that made use of the extensive colonial network and relationships developed by Great Britain during that time for the purpose of scientific exploration 9 -were used for a study led by British authors 10 . Fossil specimens were no exception, and their collection was dominated by imperial systems and exchanges 11 . For example, Charles Darwin aboard the HMS Beagle collected fossils in South America that were sent to London and studied by British palaeontologists 12 .…”