As I've mentioned before, Lucy is going to be in Houston at the end of this week for an extended stay. This is not entirely a joyous occasion in the scientific community: many people, including Richard Leakey, are not happy that such a precious specimen has been subjected to the risks of travel. I sympathize. The bones of Lucy must be treated with the utmost care and regard, and any loss or damage would be an awful tragedy. However, there's more to it than preserving an important fossil: Lucy is a touchstone to our past and is a symbol of the importance of our long history. We need to bring the ancient world to life for our citizens, and for not entirely rational reasons, people will want to see the real thing. I see that someone else shares my sentiment:
There is a wanton arrogance alive and kicking within the general scientific community. An arrogance that clings stubbornly to fact while at the same time stridently denying reality. And it pisses me the hell off. The facts in this case are clear: Lucy is one of the oldest hominid fossils ever discovered, and is very valuable for researchers. The reality of the situation is equally clear-cut, if a bit harder for the critics to swallow: Nobody gives a shit about replicas. Does it look the same? Sure. Can 99.9 percent of the population not tell the difference? You betcha. Does that matter? Not one iota. You see, for all the cranial capacity human beings have developed since little Lucy made do with a glob of gray matter the size of a key lime, we are not rational thinkers. Homo sapiens are, first and foremost, irrational and emotional.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it arrogance, but there is a little selfishness to it, and most importantly, there's a deep appreciation of the importance of that long-dead individual and a greater fear of its loss. What balances that fear, though, should be the recognition that other people could also stand to learn to love that tiny scrap of our long-past ancestry — the Lucy exhibit is an opportunity to teach.
Shouldn't that be part of our mission? In addition to our own intimate learning of science, the task of sharing it with everyone else?
- Log in to post comments
Hear, hear. That irrational, emotional connection with the past is why I loved going to museums as a kid and still do today.
Add in that you can actually learn from such experiences and institutions... Well, we should make the most of such opportunities.
I'm a relic collector from way back. (I assume it may at least in part be a side-effect of my Catholic upbringing.) I have on my desk a small chunk of masonry from Throop Hall, the original Caltech lab building (later admin center) that was torn down in 1972 because of earthquake damage. I have on my bulletin board the office door card of a colleague who passed away much too early and much too young and much too recently to be forgotten. And I noticed recently that my car still contains the small piece of wood that came from my grandparents' house when it was being gutted for reconstruction.
Each little item reminds me.
I will attend in Houston and take pictures if permitted.
I love Houston. It's teh cat fr1endl3. W3 Luv Luci3!~
doc bill's kat
Shouldn't that be part of our mission? In addition to our own intimate learning of science, the task of sharing it with everyone else?
Yes.
This has been today's edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (copyright Atrios).
The Houston Chronicle had a very nice spread on the front page about Lucy today. I can't wait to see the letters to the editor tomorrow pointing out how Satan planted fossils like her to fool those of us with little faith and what a godless, liberal paper the Chronicle is (this is a paper that never passes up a chance to endorse a conservative, no matter how demonstratably idiotic he or she is).
I believe it was Robert Pape (in an essay about how almost everyone has the makings of a suicide bomber) who asked the hypothetical "Would you give up your wedding band (for a small reward) if you knew that it would be replaced with an exact duplicate that even you couldn't tell from the original?"
Only single or divorced men answered "Yes."
Just waiting for the rabid religious fanaticals to say "dose der bones represent der DEVIL and should be destroyed to pertect us," with the associated smashing...
Oh come on now. If King Tut can tour, why not Lucy? My 2c.
Absolutely, anyone who thinks otherwise is just damn wrong. In fact, I wouldn't only say "mission", I'd say "responsibility".
As a complete non-scientist I really enjoyed 'Evolution' by Stephen Baxter. It's a novelisation, the story of, evoltion. It's told in a dramatic way that helps you identify with the protagonists and it is an incredible tale of survival.
It helped me truely appreciate that evolution is not just a dry possibly brutal, theory. Face it, 'survival of the fitest' doesn't really connote anything positive. And yet it really is a grand story on the same level as other sacred texts.
People feel truth they don't just process and accept facts.
When is the last time the Mona Lisa travelled?
The Mona Lisa isn't in Ethiopia.
I'd love to see Lucy, but my irrational side says, "What if the fucking plane crashes!?!?!?!"
It is the the same reason that I'm driving 6 hours to Thermopolis, Wyoming this weekend.
I'm going to look at an actual Archaeopteryx fossil.
Completely irrational. But I'm doing it anyway.
I have mixed feelings about this. I was very disappointed when I found out that the skull of La Brea Woman in the LA NHM was a fake. (The Page does not sell ANY fossils from the tar pits, only offers reproductions. ALL La Brea fossils remain on site.)
I kinda felt cheated in a way... I understand using reproduction parts when you don't have a whole fossil, but to reproduce the whole thing seems like cheating the paying museum members (especially because the reproduction is not labeled that I recall)
On the other hand, I can totally see keeping the only human found in the tar pits on site. BECAUSE most people can't tell the difference between a real fossil and a museum quality reproduction, I don't see where displaying a reproduction would make any difference, except on an emotional level... people want to see the "real thing" ... and I expect a lot of people are willing to pay to go to a museum to see Lucy than would pay to go see a replica.
Since Lucy is a lot better known than La Brea Woman (and arguably more important), I can see where both side would feel even more strongly than I did about La Brea Woman.
I'd like to go see Lucy, but at the same time I also worry about how well she travels, and whether or not a human remain should be moved (oddly, I did not have this concern over the remains used in Bodies displays around the country. So it seems my concern and any opposition to moving Lucy (or La Brea Woman) is purely irrational and emotional.
I can't feel TOO bad about feeling emotional about science, though.
Sorry, I have to say that the Mona Lisa is in a bountiful place in our cultural psyche, but holds no weight in comprison to Lucy.
Lucy is a link to our past, a tool of understanding. Art, while important in many regards, is at most a persons comments on the past.
Let lucy travel...but treat her with ever increasing delicacy.
At the Denver Musuem of Nature and Science they have a cast of the Lucy skeleton. It looks very real, and I would bet that one cannot tell the difference. The original specimen should not be moved. They should take an authentic looking cast and tell people it is the real deal.
On another matter. Don't the majority of paleoanthropologists do analysis from casts anyway?
How much research is done using the Lucy fossil nowadays? I would imagine not much, given the importance placed upon the specimen.
Is Lucy so valuable to science that she cannot be used for science, either through research or to inspire wonder? If so, than of what value is she?
You would advocate lying to people?
Uh, no. We shouldn't do that, ever.
As the custodian of three entirely ordinary (and thus within my meagre budget) trilobite fossils, I understand the fascination that the real article holds. No matter how well done, a reproduction could not induce in me the feeling of awe and wonder that holding the remains of a dime-a-dozen sea bug that had lived 400 million years ago produces. That feeling of connection can be a powerful outreach tool. I don't know what my decision would be if I were custodian of Lucy, but it wouldn't be a slam-dunk.
I'm not as interested in hominids as in other denizens of the past, but while I might go to see Lucy if she came within range, a reproduction wouldn't have me go to the end of the street.
"The original specimen should not be moved. They should take an authentic looking cast and tell people it is the real deal."
If we evolutionists lied like that we'd have to pay creationists a licence fee for use of their techniques.
From the Washington Post:
The International Association for the Study of Human Paleontology, a group affiliated with UNESCO, passed a resolution in 1998 saying such fossils shouldn't be moved outside the country of origin. The resolution, unanimously approved by representatives of 20 countries, including Ethiopia and the United States, said replicas should be used for public display.
Apparently the Smithsonian is refusing to display the Lucy fossils. Bummer.
Mike,
:)
Well put!
I share Pee Zed's sentiments. This week I used a real fossilized mammoth tooth (with attached jaw material) in my high school sophomore biology class. I made a special point of indicating the fossil's age and its irreplaceableness. You should have seen the students' faces light up and their eyes go wide when they realized it wasn't a 'fake'.
Get an emotional hook in 'em first, then keep 'em on the line with intellectual appreciation!
I had the opportunity to take an early peek at the exhibit in Houston. The part almost no one mentions is that it's not just Lucy on display. You have to go through a gallery (fully 50% of the display space) filled with religious artifacts from Ethiopia--which seek to prove that Ethiopia is "the cradle of civilization"--before paying a call on Lucy. Ethiopia is evidently hungry for American tourist dollars, and is hoping that this display will dispel negative media images of the country and encourage Americans to visit.
The religion primarily on display is Christianity (especially an Orthodox form with roots in Ethiopia), although there are nods to Ethiopia's Muslim, Jewish, and Rastafarian heritage as well. A few "tribal" cultural artifacts are also included, but the focus of this half of the display space is undeniably on religion. More than one reference is made to Ethiopia being the home of the Queen of Sheba, the final resting place of the true Ark of the Covenant, and so forth, for example.
However, the panels of wall text explaining basic evolutionary concepts that one must pass by after the religious stuff, but before viewing the fossil herself, is fairly well done. There's even one titled something like "Why are you calling me a mutant?" that explains that everyone carries different sorts of mutations. But the question of religious faith vs. scientific processes is only vaguely addressed, and that only in one panel.
Still worth seeing. Negotiations are still being made for her next US stops, but nothing has been finalized.
As to further scientific research, it seems that UT Austin will likely get to perform a CAT scan of the skeleton, which is a test that has not yet been performed on Lucy.
They better have very good security.
What is the possibility that a Xian terrorist will try and destroy those old fossil bones? Pretty high IMO.
These guys think nothing of lying for Jesus. They occasionally kill for Jesus. I can just see the wheels going around in their tiny brains. Why try to destroy science for Jesus by babbling like an insane 2 year old on the internet when you can sabatage some real fossils with a hammer? For Jesus of course.
There have already been some rumblings from the creo cess pool community about doing exactly that.
As a Houston resident, though not a US American, I personally believe that It should help South Africa and the Iraq.
Christian B. - ...What? Did you just fall asleep at the keyboard?
John: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Actually, Tut didn't tour. His body remains in KV62, his tomb. His mask did in '76 (stunning and worth the 6 hour wait snaking through the National Gallery), but the current exhibit has no major artifacts from the tomb at all (sorry, jewelry and canopic jars don't count). Still an interesting (if Disneyfied) presentation, but nothing that made you go "Wow!" (at least if you'd seen the first one).
We went to New York last fall, and the one museum we had time to see (we were only there for a week) was the museum of natural history.
They had some sort of fossil bone mounted on a table in the fossil display. You could actually pad/rub/kiss this bone.
It gave the whole display a new depth that you were able to link so directly with the past.
I only wish that I could travel the distance from where I live in Europe to see the the most amazing fossil of all time. I have read the book about her discovery and have tried to read everything else concerning her. I just hope the security if very tight as you never know the fundie idiots might try to do for their mythological god. Safe journey Lucy
Re: 28,
Wow, thanks for that link, I had no idea there were such superb examples of living hominid fossils in South Carolina.
Her cranial capacity must be almost as large as Lucy's.
The emotional impact of see the real thing can be huge, and perhaps even more so if it's unexpected (which doesn't apply in the case of Lucy, since everyone going to the exhibit will be well aware she's there).
As an example, at the Natural History Museum in Dublin (Ireland), there's an extremely old fossil† (3+ billion years old, as I recall)--apparently one of the oldest ever found in Europe--sitting off to the side in its own case. When I visited, I wasn't expecting that, and it is easily one of the most memorable points of my visit.
Sadly, it was also ignored by most of the other visitors. Partly, I presume, due to its location, but also because the physical museum is itself amazing. It's "a unique example of a 'cabinet museum' of the kind which could be seen throughout the world in the 19th century" (The Natural History Museum: Present status and future needs (PDF)), with only a tiny fraction of its collection on display.
† Apologies for being non-specific about the fossil. My recollection of the details is sufficiently imprecise that they aren't worth posting, and some quick searching on the web failed to locate any more definitive information.
Lucy's replica is available for viewing at the Field Museum in Chicago, and they are trying to negotiate a visit of the real thing later in the year or early next.
I am definitely a fan of the real thing, the replicas are nice but don't have as much of an impact on me. Its the difference between 'oh what a nice plastic copy of a skeleton' and 'those bones were INSIDE one of early hominids so many thousands of years ago'. While I'm a big believer in preserving natural history, a bone in a box in a locked room does nobody any good. And getting people to feel connected to the fossil record is good. The risk is worth it.
Sheldon writes:
What PZ says. It's truly an awful idea. If you display a cast, call it a cast. If you display a model, call it a model. If it's imaginative artwork, call it so. If you aren't convinced by the principle of the thing, just imagine the Creationist outrage when such a thing gets out, as it will.
And they'd be right to be outraged.
But they know they are working with a cast when they work with a cast.
For those wondering about security.... There were uniformed security guards in the exhibit when I saw Lucy--and this was before the general public being allowed in. I don't know whether the guards were actual police officers (on or off duty), but they were sure dressed like them.
I'm not saying whether this is "enough" security or not, since I can't guess that. But they do have more than your typical docent-type present.
Recently the King Tut traveling exhibit came to MT's Museum of the Rockies. The displays were nice and I stolled through reading all the placards. But, I was not teribly impacted. Everything (except 2 necklaces) were replicas. I was not impressed by a 4ft tall gold leaf statue I knew was plastic. Now, you show me the real thing and I am liable to stare in awe for hours. A replica just does not inspire me like the real thing.
Those worrying about the security of Lucy's bones are well-justified.
Consider that it took only two Texans to wreck the planet's most powerful military, beggar the world's leading economy, destroy the western hemisphere's foremost seaport, literally grind to dust uncounted artifacts from the dawn of civilization while butchering the Middle East's most advanced secular nation, and undermine a Constitution which had withstood civil war, depression, and outrageous corruption.
And Ethiopia's irreplaceable treasure will now be surrounded by millions of Texans! :-O
"You would advocate lying to people?
Uh, no. We shouldn't do that, ever."
Yeah, you're right. I stand corrected.
We've got tickets to see her tonight during the members only preview. Can't wait! What a coup for our local science museum!
You need tickets for the reception tonight? Oops!
(frenzied running around, looking for my membership card)
Still a couple left, whew.
The fact is, the real thing has an immediacy that plastic casts lack. So my husband and I will celebrate our 28th anniversary at the Lucy unveiling tonight. But we wouldn't have, had those bones been plastic. Real fossils are just so much more festive.
I was thinking along the same lines, but instead of Tut, I was thinking Mick Jagger ...
Well, I'd probably go to the end of the street to see a reproduction, but not make the 5 hour drive down to Houston. Like a few other people here, I've got a handful of real trilobite and ammonite fossils. And I'd go further to see those than a reproduction of any fossil.
Anyway, my family's planned a trip to Houston for October. Hopefully the crowds won't be so bad by then.
Christian B., LOL thanks!
As a US American, I fully support this new meme.
(for the children)
Oh, lay off her, Christian B. I think Atrios said it best:
As for this:
Dubya is in no way a Texan. He's from a blue-blooded northeastern dynasty, and he merely moved to Texas when the GOP determined he could win a run for Governor there.
Stogoe: I apologize for attempting to use humor on the internets.
While visiting London I had a chance to see a cast of Lucy, along with a bunch of reproduction skulls. It was cool, but the real thrill was actually picking up a 500,000 yr old stone hand axe. It was awe-inspiring to hold something that one of my ancient ancestors may have created. (Dont remember if it was the British Museum or the Natural History Museum - they're both good and FREE). I really hope Lucy makes it to Philly!
Glad to see that somebody else understands the value of cultural heritage and the intrinsic value of sharing it. Lucy is actually such a small part of the exhibition. And all of the complaints about her presence here overshadow the broader spectrum of the exhibition. Lucy's fossils, in THIS day amd age, are in no danger of being broken. I speak from conservation experience from this country's best-known museum.
"Dubya is in no way a Texan. He's from a blue-blooded northeastern dynasty, and he merely moved to Texas when the GOP determined he could win a run for Governor there."
No, Texas has to wear him now. Texans adopted him, made him governor and helped, in a big way, make him President. Twice. By accepting Bush's bullshit folksy image, Texans endorsed that PR guff to the rest of the US.
I'm not without sympathy, and don't blame all Texans, but 'Texas' had the choice and chose Bush. The Northeast had the choice and rejected him. As in evolution, origins and present are not necessarily the same thing.
It's true, isn't it? Bringing Lucy to Texas, especially at a time like now, is a wonderful idea. There is something in our brain that just responds to something like that. You gaze upon something so fragile, so carefully handled and displayed, and so plainly a relic of a body -- an intensely intimate relic at that -- and for some people, that experience will form a better argument against the idea that the world is 6000 years old than any amount of talking.