What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Archaeopteryx Saga: Das Rätsel Des Urvogels
1861 wurde das erste Fossil eines Archaeopteryx in den ergiebigen Steinbrüchen von Solnhofen entdeckt. Damit begann eine ebenso aufregende wie kuriose Zeit für Paläontologen und Ornithologen, aber auch für Abenteurer und Geschäftemacher. Doch der erbitterte Streit um den Archaeopteryx ist nicht auf die Vergangenheit beschränkt: Auch heute noch kämpfen sowohl Wissenschaftler als auch religiöse Kräfte um die Bedeutung dieses besonderen Tieres und der Funde, die man in jüngster Zeit machen konnte.
Paul Chambers -- er war unter anderem als wissenschaftlicher Berater für die BBC-Erfolgsserie Dinosaurier -- im Reich der Giganten tätig - erzählt die Geschichte des erstaunlichen Urvogels mit viel Witz und einem enormen Gespür für Dramatik. Die Geschichte beginnt mit dem glücklichen Fund des ersten Exemplars, das der Arzt Dr. Karl Häberlein mit allerlei Winkelzügen an den Meistbietenden verkaufte. Sofort stürzten sich Wissenschaftler verschiedenster Richtungen auf den Archaeopteryx, denn gerade hatte Darwin mit seinem Werk Die Entstehung der Arten durch natürliche Zuchtwahl Furore gemacht. Und der Urvogel schien der Beweis für seine Theorie zu sein, dass Arten durch Evolution aus anderen Arten entstehen. In der Folge kam es zu Intrigen und offenen Feindseligkeiten -- zuerst zwischen den Wissenschaftlern Owen und Huxley, später folgte der Knochenkrieg zwischen Cope und Marsh. Nicht wenige ruinierten sich finanziell und körperlich bei dem Versuch, ihre Sicht der Dinge zu beweisen.
Doch obwohl die Evolution selbst inzwischen nur noch von wenigen angezweifelt wird, gibt es auch heute noch erstaunliche Kämpfe und Ereignisse rund um den Archaeopteryx und neueste Funde zum Beispiel in China. So sorgte in den achtziger Jahren eine Fälschung, der Archaeoraptor, für Aufregung. Und ein neuer Vorfahr der Vögel ist eben erst entdeckt worden. Haben sich die Vögel aus den Dinosauriern entwickelt, oder gehen beide auf einen gemeinsamen Vorfahr zurück? Es bleibt spannend.
Die Geschichte des Archaeopteryx ist tatsächlich eine Saga mit allem, was dazu gehört: heißblütige Protagonisten, Intrigen, Kämpfe -- und jede Menge Überraschungen. Paul Chambers hat ein spannendes und verrücktes Stück Wissenschaftsgeschichte ebenso aufschlussreich wie unterhaltsam aufbereitet. Lesen! -- Gabi Neumayer
Paperback
First published June 27, 2002
4 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
Paul Chambers
5 booksDr. Paul Chambers is a naturalist. Currently, he is a freelance writer and scientific consultant. He is also interested in foraging.
Chambers has worked in London's Natural History Museum and was a producer for the BBC series "Talking with Dinosaurs."
Chambers has worked in London's Natural History Museum and was a producer for the BBC series "Talking with Dinosaurs."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 21, 2018
I never quite realised before I read this how much controversy Archaeopteryx stirred up, or the petty quarrels between opposing professors and palaeontologists. I found it interesting that Chambers gave serious consideration to the ideas of people who say that birds aren’t descended directly from dinosaurs; as he says, some of the arguments against that direct relationship do make sense and are worth considering, even though there’s also plenty of evidence on the other side.
Altogether, this is a great analysis of Archaeopteryx, its impact, and what it symbolised. There’s mini biographies of various scientists, including Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog), and some of them are surprisingly fascinating. In a way, this is more about arguments about evolution via natural selection and “missing links” than it is specifically about Archaeopteryx, although there is plenty of info here about the fossil itself as well.
Readable and interesting, though at times there’s a bit too much about the feuds of ridiculous scientists who just wanted to prove each other wrong.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
Altogether, this is a great analysis of Archaeopteryx, its impact, and what it symbolised. There’s mini biographies of various scientists, including Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog), and some of them are surprisingly fascinating. In a way, this is more about arguments about evolution via natural selection and “missing links” than it is specifically about Archaeopteryx, although there is plenty of info here about the fossil itself as well.
Readable and interesting, though at times there’s a bit too much about the feuds of ridiculous scientists who just wanted to prove each other wrong.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
January 20, 2013
A few years ago I had a notion about the legend of the grail as it appeared in medieval Germany. The Bavarian poet Wolfram von Eschenbach described the grail (grâl or graal he called it) by the strange term lapsit exillis, by which he meant a stone rather than the more familiar dish or chalice. Wolfram has his own conceit about this object: By the power of that stone the phoenix burns to ashes, but the ashes give him life again. Thus does the phoenix [moult] and change its plumage, which afterwards is bright and shining and as lovely as before.*
When reading this I had a sudden vision of the deceased phoenix on its stone as an archaeopteryx fossil, the first of which had been discovered in Bavaria in the middle of the nineteenth century. Checking the map I discover that Wolfram’s home town, now re-named Wolframs-Eschenbach in his honour, is not that far distant from the Altmühltal, a river valley where the limestone quarries that first revealed these winged and feathered creatures are situated. Was it possible that this medieval poet had seen a now vanished archaeopteryx fossil, that it too reminded him of the legend of the phoenix, and that he subsequently co-opted that legend for his version of the wondrous quest object?
I included this notion in a short story I wrote, and passed the hypothesis by the odd mildly intrigued expert, but it remains mere speculation, however much I’d like to believe it may be true. And there it stayed until this account of archaeopteryx (from the Greek for ‘ancient’ and ‘wing’) by palaeontologist Paul Chambers started me wondering about it again. The fossils on their beds of stone display odd features for dinosaurs, most obviously the presence of feathers, and have caused, and continue to cause, controversy ever since their discovery and resurrection from the rocks: is archaeopteryx and its ilk a missing evolutionary link between extinct dinosaurs and modern birds?
This is a riveting narrative directed at the general reader. Chambers’ commentary makes it clear that even for a palaeontologist like himself there are a lot of questions still to be answered: research since the book was first published has already moved the discussion on, and will of course continue to do so, as science never stands still. It is also as much a study of the humans involved with archaeopteryx over its 150 years of exposure as with the beast itself and its place in the fossil record. From Richard Owen to Fred Hoyle, and from Thomas Huxley to John Ostrom, the students of archaeopteryx are no less fascinating than this creature from the Jurassic. Darwinians who accept its existence Chambers splits roughly into palaeontologists or BAD adherents (from ‘Birds ARE Dinosaurs’) and ornithologists or BAND supporters (‘Birds are NOT Dinosaurs’). Then there are those who believe the various existing specimens were faked: they consist mostly of Creationists and conspiracy theorists.
Meanwhile, a swift trawl through the web using the key words ‘grail’, ‘palaeontology’ and ‘archaeopteryx’ will reveal journalists’ frequent recourse to the relic as a metaphor for the ultimate or the unattainable in this field. According to one commentator “the holy grail of species evolution” underlines the importance of archaeopteryx to palaeontology and biology; the remains of feathers represent “the Holy Grail that demonstrated … that birds are highly derived dinosaurs” according to another; and, declares a third, “part of the Holy Grail [is] how the development of the limb changed during evolution of birds from their theropod ancestor”. My hunch that Wolfram’s concept of the grail as a resurrection stone for the phoenix could be based on a medieval archaeopteryx fossil may well be shown to be false, or deemed inconclusive from lack of proof; yet in popular culture archaeopteryx is, indeed, already the grail.
* Wolfram von Eschenbach Parzival (translated by Helen M Mustard and Charles E Passage) Vintage Books 1961
http://calmgrove.wordpress.com/2013/0...
When reading this I had a sudden vision of the deceased phoenix on its stone as an archaeopteryx fossil, the first of which had been discovered in Bavaria in the middle of the nineteenth century. Checking the map I discover that Wolfram’s home town, now re-named Wolframs-Eschenbach in his honour, is not that far distant from the Altmühltal, a river valley where the limestone quarries that first revealed these winged and feathered creatures are situated. Was it possible that this medieval poet had seen a now vanished archaeopteryx fossil, that it too reminded him of the legend of the phoenix, and that he subsequently co-opted that legend for his version of the wondrous quest object?
I included this notion in a short story I wrote, and passed the hypothesis by the odd mildly intrigued expert, but it remains mere speculation, however much I’d like to believe it may be true. And there it stayed until this account of archaeopteryx (from the Greek for ‘ancient’ and ‘wing’) by palaeontologist Paul Chambers started me wondering about it again. The fossils on their beds of stone display odd features for dinosaurs, most obviously the presence of feathers, and have caused, and continue to cause, controversy ever since their discovery and resurrection from the rocks: is archaeopteryx and its ilk a missing evolutionary link between extinct dinosaurs and modern birds?
This is a riveting narrative directed at the general reader. Chambers’ commentary makes it clear that even for a palaeontologist like himself there are a lot of questions still to be answered: research since the book was first published has already moved the discussion on, and will of course continue to do so, as science never stands still. It is also as much a study of the humans involved with archaeopteryx over its 150 years of exposure as with the beast itself and its place in the fossil record. From Richard Owen to Fred Hoyle, and from Thomas Huxley to John Ostrom, the students of archaeopteryx are no less fascinating than this creature from the Jurassic. Darwinians who accept its existence Chambers splits roughly into palaeontologists or BAD adherents (from ‘Birds ARE Dinosaurs’) and ornithologists or BAND supporters (‘Birds are NOT Dinosaurs’). Then there are those who believe the various existing specimens were faked: they consist mostly of Creationists and conspiracy theorists.
Meanwhile, a swift trawl through the web using the key words ‘grail’, ‘palaeontology’ and ‘archaeopteryx’ will reveal journalists’ frequent recourse to the relic as a metaphor for the ultimate or the unattainable in this field. According to one commentator “the holy grail of species evolution” underlines the importance of archaeopteryx to palaeontology and biology; the remains of feathers represent “the Holy Grail that demonstrated … that birds are highly derived dinosaurs” according to another; and, declares a third, “part of the Holy Grail [is] how the development of the limb changed during evolution of birds from their theropod ancestor”. My hunch that Wolfram’s concept of the grail as a resurrection stone for the phoenix could be based on a medieval archaeopteryx fossil may well be shown to be false, or deemed inconclusive from lack of proof; yet in popular culture archaeopteryx is, indeed, already the grail.
* Wolfram von Eschenbach Parzival (translated by Helen M Mustard and Charles E Passage) Vintage Books 1961
http://calmgrove.wordpress.com/2013/0...
March 25, 2011
This is one of the best paced geology-based popular interest books I've read. It flowed well, was aimed well at a general audience and kept interest almost all the way through. I thought the deviation into the Marsh and Cope story was a little too long and a little too tenuous to theme of the book (I have a whole tome on them waiting for me on my bookshelf, I didn't really need it in this book too). Over all, highly enjoyable and now a permanent addition to my bookshelf.
November 22, 2024
The Archaeopteryx (or Urvogel) is a fascinating study of the interpretation of a fossil. It is also a very interesting case study about the way that people’s pre-conceptions (or biases) can influence their interpretation of what they think they are seeing and what they think it means.
What makes this fossil so interesting is that it seems to be a transitional fossil, sitting between distinct groups of other fossils. This made it a candidate for a ‘missing link’ which would potentially have provided evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Whether it really is a transitional fossil, or not, is one of the issues which the book tries to get to grips with. But scholars continue to disagree about aspects of the fossil, and perhaps there will always be disagreements.
What this book does well is that it tries to get inside the minds and preconceptions of the different scholars who encountered the fossil. There were (at least) two clearly defined groups. There were those who believed that the book of Genesis is literally true and so they were inclined to think that the world was young(er) and that there were not transitional fossils. They interpreted archaeopteryx in a way that fit with that world view. Then there were a very different set of scholars who were broadly following Darwin and interpreted the fossil as a ‘missing link.’ Each group of scholars saw, to some extent, what they expected (or wanted?) to see.
This is a well written and very readable account. There are lots of small chapters so the book can be read in smaller chunks. And each chapter flows with simple and clear prose, which largely avoids unnecessary academic or technical language.
One of the things which readers do need to bear in mind is that books about archaeology can quickly become out of date. Each publication is just a newly discovered fossil away from being inaccurate. At the time when the book was published in 2002, there were seven archaeopteryx fossils. Twenty years later there are now about a dozen fossils and there are constant newly nuanced studies emerging. This is not to detract from a book which is still well worth reading, but it is to clarify the caveat that readers do need to be mindful that this is an older book and so some remarks may now be out-of-date.
Overall, this is an interesting book which should be accessible to readers from any background. Its language means that it is also a book which interested High School students could profitably engage with.
What makes this fossil so interesting is that it seems to be a transitional fossil, sitting between distinct groups of other fossils. This made it a candidate for a ‘missing link’ which would potentially have provided evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Whether it really is a transitional fossil, or not, is one of the issues which the book tries to get to grips with. But scholars continue to disagree about aspects of the fossil, and perhaps there will always be disagreements.
What this book does well is that it tries to get inside the minds and preconceptions of the different scholars who encountered the fossil. There were (at least) two clearly defined groups. There were those who believed that the book of Genesis is literally true and so they were inclined to think that the world was young(er) and that there were not transitional fossils. They interpreted archaeopteryx in a way that fit with that world view. Then there were a very different set of scholars who were broadly following Darwin and interpreted the fossil as a ‘missing link.’ Each group of scholars saw, to some extent, what they expected (or wanted?) to see.
This is a well written and very readable account. There are lots of small chapters so the book can be read in smaller chunks. And each chapter flows with simple and clear prose, which largely avoids unnecessary academic or technical language.
One of the things which readers do need to bear in mind is that books about archaeology can quickly become out of date. Each publication is just a newly discovered fossil away from being inaccurate. At the time when the book was published in 2002, there were seven archaeopteryx fossils. Twenty years later there are now about a dozen fossils and there are constant newly nuanced studies emerging. This is not to detract from a book which is still well worth reading, but it is to clarify the caveat that readers do need to be mindful that this is an older book and so some remarks may now be out-of-date.
Overall, this is an interesting book which should be accessible to readers from any background. Its language means that it is also a book which interested High School students could profitably engage with.
August 24, 2021
Having been homeschooled in a Creationisnt household, I first learned of Archaeopteryx as a forgery, a missing link that could never exist! When Tiktaalik (See: Your Inner Fish: a Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body) was discovered, that was one of the pillars of creationism falling, from my perspective (along with reading a headline that DNA removal could turn a chicken beak into a dinosaur maw). But for all these years I've still always always thought of Archaeopteryx as being under a cloud of fraudulence. But at this point in my life, I've pushed through enough Creationist tricks and rhetoric to be suspicious of that allegation. Sure enough! It was a media snafu... I'm shocked at those meddling astrophysicists, though. And the whole "birds are dinosaurs" assertion is far more nuanced and maybe not as rock solid as I had thought from reading mere sensationalist articles. Still probably true, though (Well, this book was published in 2002 and doesn't mention DNA research, for that see: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom).
March 6, 2014
Interesting but a bit dry.
From Wiki :
Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is the earliest and most primitive bird known. The name is from the Ancient Greek ἀρχαῖος archaios meaning 'ancient' and πτέρυξ pteryx meaning 'feather' or 'wing'; pronounced /ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ AR-kee-OP-ter-iks.
Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 150–145 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now.
[image error]
From Wiki :
Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is the earliest and most primitive bird known. The name is from the Ancient Greek ἀρχαῖος archaios meaning 'ancient' and πτέρυξ pteryx meaning 'feather' or 'wing'; pronounced /ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ AR-kee-OP-ter-iks.
Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 150–145 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now.
[image error]
July 26, 2025
This book reads like a thriller. I could hardly put it down. Paul Chambers, a micropaleontologist, is also an excellent writer who was able to make the controversies surrounding the discovery of the archeopteryx (the fossil of a bird with reptilian characteristics) come alive.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews