Calaveras Skull: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|[[Josiah Whitney]] | |[[Josiah Whitney]] | ||
|believed that the skull had been found by a miner,James Mattison, and was evidence of Pliocene Man in North America <ref> | |believed that the skull had been found by a miner,James Mattison, and was evidence of Pliocene Man in North America <ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|[[Frederic Ward Putnam]] | |[[Frederic Ward Putnam]] | ||
|believed the skull was genuine and represented the oldest known record of humankind in America<ref> | |believed the skull was genuine and represented the oldest known record of humankind in America<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|William H Dall | |William H Dall | ||
|examined the Calaveras skull story and believed that there were enough scientists who believed the information to be sufficient and saw no reason to doubt the origin<ref> | |examined the Calaveras skull story and believed that there were enough scientists who believed the information to be sufficient and saw no reason to doubt the origin<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|[[William Henry Holmes]] (1899) | |[[William Henry Holmes]] (1899) | ||
|at this time had reviewed the information that was in circulation within the scientific community on both the skull and other evidence for humankind in California and saw no reason to doubt the validity<ref> | |at this time had reviewed the information that was in circulation within the scientific community on both the skull and other evidence for humankind in California and saw no reason to doubt the validity<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|J. C. Merriam | |J. C. Merriam | ||
|was sympathetic to Whitney and Putnam yet was still skeptic and wanted more proof through his own study on the gravel from the mine the skull was found in<ref> | |was sympathetic to Whitney and Putnam yet was still skeptic and wanted more proof through his own study on the gravel from the mine the skull was found in<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |Thomas Wilson | ||
|questioned the validity of the claim that the skull had been planted in the mine<ref> | |questioned the validity of the claim that the skull had been planted in the mine<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Conservative Christians | |Conservative Christians | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Bret Harte | |Bret Harte | ||
|ridiculed the find and believed it was a hoax | |ridiculed the find and believed it was a hoax <ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Most locals | |Most locals | ||
|multiple stories of locals who claimed that the skull was a hoax | |multiple stories of locals who claimed that the skull was a hoax <ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|A San Francisco paper '''find out what paper''' | |A San Francisco paper '''find out what paper''' | ||
|published an editorial November 25,1869 that stated that they believed it was a hoax and that they had a source that informed them that the whole thing started as a prank on Professor Whitney | |published an editorial November 25,1869 that stated that they believed it was a hoax and that they had a source that informed them that the whole thing started as a prank on Professor Whitney <ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|GF Becker | |GF Becker | ||
|thought that the skull was planted in the mine but believed that the skull was fossilized evidence of early humankind in California<ref> | |thought that the skull was planted in the mine but believed that the skull was fossilized evidence of early humankind in California<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Evening Star | |Evening Star | ||
|reported on December 3,1898 that an anonymous informant told a reporter that the skull came from Salt Springs about 12 miles from Angel's Camp and was placed in the mine as a prank on Mattison and Whitney<ref> | |reported on December 3,1898 that an anonymous informant told a reporter that the skull came from Salt Springs about 12 miles from Angel's Camp and was placed in the mine as a prank on Mattison and Whitney<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|W. P. Blake | |W. P. Blake | ||
|believed that the skull showed similarities to and likely was from an Indian burial instead of an ancient fossil<ref> | |believed that the skull showed similarities to and likely was from an Indian burial instead of an ancient fossil<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|[[William Henry Holmes]](]]1901) | |[[William Henry Holmes]](]]1901) | ||
|at this time he re-evaluated the known evidence for human remains in auriferous gravels in California and determined that the skull did not share the characteristics, conditions or associations<ref> | |at this time he re-evaluated the known evidence for human remains in auriferous gravels in California and determined that the skull did not share the characteristics, conditions or associations<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|E. H. Schaeffle | |E. H. Schaeffle | ||
|wrote to putnam explaining that he was involved in the hoax and that the skull that was originally planted in the mine was blackened by the dirt that it came from instead of stained red, white, or blue like what was actually within the mine shaft<ref> | |wrote to putnam explaining that he was involved in the hoax and that the skull that was originally planted in the mine was blackened by the dirt that it came from instead of stained red, white, or blue like what was actually within the mine shaft<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|The Calaveras Prospect | |The Calaveras Prospect | ||
|published an article on September 14, 1901 about Putnam coming to re-investigate the mine that was titled "That Calaveras Skull Again-Scientists Still Investigating the Old Fraud."<ref> | |published an article on September 14, 1901 about Putnam coming to re-investigate the mine that was titled "That Calaveras Skull Again-Scientists Still Investigating the Old Fraud."<ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|GJME d’Aquin | |GJME d’Aquin | ||
|believed that the skull presented features that did not align with the rest of the known evidence for early humankind | |believed that the skull presented features that did not align with the rest of the known evidence for early humankind | ||
<ref> | <ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> | ||
|} | |} | ||
==Pseudo-archaeological Narrative== | ==Pseudo-archaeological Narrative== | ||
J D Whitney and later F Ward Putnam believed that the skull was evidence of the earliest human fossil in North America. Whitney believed the skull to be that of a Pliocene age '''(add link)''' despite many locals involved in the mining operation were aware that the skull was a hoax and was a part of a prank. However the belief in the validity of the skull was shared by many in the scientific community and after Whitney's announcement July 16 1899 <ref> Whitney 1867,1880 FIX THE CITATION ADD LINK AND CITATION </ref> fueled much scientific literature as well as media and religious-oriented publications. <ref> | J D Whitney and later F Ward Putnam believed that the skull was evidence of the earliest human fossil in North America. Whitney believed the skull to be that of a Pliocene age '''(add link)''' despite many locals involved in the mining operation were aware that the skull was a hoax and was a part of a prank. However the belief in the validity of the skull was shared by many in the scientific community and after Whitney's announcement July 16 1899 <ref> Whitney 1867,1880 FIX THE CITATION ADD LINK AND CITATION </ref> fueled much scientific literature as well as media and religious-oriented publications. <ref name="foo">Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949</ref> There are still many who believe the story of the skull despite evidence that is a hoax. | ||
When Putnam went back to re-research the origin of the skull it was uncovered that there may have been two different skulls involved in this hoax. there was one that was a skull that was black, having been dyed by the soil it was removed from, that Schaeffle claimed was from the Salt Springs Valley, however the skull that was studied at Harvard by Whitney and later tested by others was white and carbonate-encrusted <ref> dexter 1986:367-368 </ref> There was also a radiocarbon analysis using both conventional decay and accelerator mass spectrometry done on the skull that revealed the age to be less than 1000 years old. | When Putnam went back to re-research the origin of the skull it was uncovered that there may have been two different skulls involved in this hoax. there was one that was a skull that was black, having been dyed by the soil it was removed from, that Schaeffle claimed was from the Salt Springs Valley, however the skull that was studied at Harvard by Whitney and later tested by others was white and carbonate-encrusted <ref> dexter 1986:367-368 </ref> There was also a radiocarbon analysis using both conventional decay and accelerator mass spectrometry done on the skull that revealed the age to be less than 1000 years old. | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
go through and add all of the citations and links | go through and add all of the citations and links | ||
especially in the support/against section (also give full names) | especially in the support/against section (also give full names) | ||
make sure to go back and include all the citations fully and accurately | make sure to go back and include all the citations fully and accurately | ||
Revision as of 23:19, 30 November 2017
In the later part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, the Calaveras skull was a human skull believed by many to be evidence of Pliocene Man in North America. Initially, it was dated to the Pliocene era, yet after testing, the date was found to be much younger. Local people who were involved in creating the hoax years later helped begin to clear up some of the mystery and confusion that surrounded the skull.
History
The Calaveras Skull allegedly originated out of a mining camp in Calaveras County, CA. It was passed around for a time and ended up in the collection of the Peabody Museum at Harvard.The provenance of the Calaveras Skull is one of the aspects of the Calaveras skull that is debated and still not definitively known. There are a few main trails of ownership that seem to be the most widely accepted.
Timeline One
The first starts February 25, 1866 when workers for James Mattison removed a skull from a mining shaft at Angel's Camp in Bald Mountain, Calaveras County, CA. The skull was said to be found 130 feet below the surface and beneath a layer of lava. These miners then gave the skull to R. C. Scribner who was a merchant and agent for Wells, Fargo and Company at Angel’s Camp. Scribner then passed the skull on to William Jones, a physician at Murphy’s camp, who, upon receiving the skull, notified J D Whitney, the State Geologist of California and a Professor of geology at Harvard University. The skull was encrusted with sediment so Whitney cleaned the skull within the lab there with the help of Jefferies Wyman a comparative anatomist at Harvard. Whitney announced the discovery on July 16, 1866 at a meeting of the California Academy of Science [2]
Timeline Two
The second story follows along the same timeline and starts sometime in 1865 with E. H. Schaeffle from Murphy's, CA. In 1901 he wrote to Putnam who, at the time, was at Angel's Camp restudying the skull's origin. Schaeffle claimed that in 1865 there were a number of Indian skulls that were being found during a dig the company did at a spring in Salt Springs Valley. One of these skulls supposedly went to Dr. James Kelley. Kelley had the skull in office on the Cap Hanford Lumber Yard for a time. This skull was black from the black earth that it was dug from. The skull disappeared from Kelley's office and eventually resurfaced in the possession of R. C. Scribner. In this timeline Scribner stole the skull and sent it to William Jones with the story of James Mattison finding it at Bald Hill. Jones then held onto the skull along with others that were found while mining until J D Whitney took the skull from the rest. Whitney wanted to look in the shaft it was supposedly found in and do further research because he believed the story that Jones was told and that the skull was proof of early humankind in North America.
Those in support and against the story of the Calaveras Skull
- REFORMAT INTO NARRATIVE FORMAT
(include that these are persons involved during historically)
- link to their wikipedia pages
| Supporters of Skull story | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josiah Whitney | believed that the skull had been found by a miner,James Mattison, and was evidence of Pliocene Man in North America [3] | ||||
| Frederic Ward Putnam | believed the skull was genuine and represented the oldest known record of humankind in America[3] | ||||
| William H Dall | examined the Calaveras skull story and believed that there were enough scientists who believed the information to be sufficient and saw no reason to doubt the origin[3] | ||||
| William Henry Holmes (1899) | at this time had reviewed the information that was in circulation within the scientific community on both the skull and other evidence for humankind in California and saw no reason to doubt the validity[3] | ||||
| J. C. Merriam | was sympathetic to Whitney and Putnam yet was still skeptic and wanted more proof through his own study on the gravel from the mine the skull was found in[3] | ||||
| Thomas Wilson | questioned the validity of the claim that the skull had been planted in the mine[3] | ||||
| Conservative Christians | used the story of the skull to support anti-evolutionary beliefs[4]There are some extremely conservative christians that use the Calaveras skull as evidence that mankind has existed for an extended period of time unchanged by evolution. [5] | ||||
| Against the Skull story | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bret Harte | ridiculed the find and believed it was a hoax [3] | ||||
| Most locals | multiple stories of locals who claimed that the skull was a hoax [3] | ||||
| A San Francisco paper find out what paper | published an editorial November 25,1869 that stated that they believed it was a hoax and that they had a source that informed them that the whole thing started as a prank on Professor Whitney [3] | ||||
| GF Becker | thought that the skull was planted in the mine but believed that the skull was fossilized evidence of early humankind in California[3] | ||||
| Evening Star | reported on December 3,1898 that an anonymous informant told a reporter that the skull came from Salt Springs about 12 miles from Angel's Camp and was placed in the mine as a prank on Mattison and Whitney[3] | ||||
| W. P. Blake | believed that the skull showed similarities to and likely was from an Indian burial instead of an ancient fossil[3] | ||||
| William Henry Holmes(]]1901) | at this time he re-evaluated the known evidence for human remains in auriferous gravels in California and determined that the skull did not share the characteristics, conditions or associations[3] | ||||
| E. H. Schaeffle | wrote to putnam explaining that he was involved in the hoax and that the skull that was originally planted in the mine was blackened by the dirt that it came from instead of stained red, white, or blue like what was actually within the mine shaft[3] | ||||
| The Calaveras Prospect | published an article on September 14, 1901 about Putnam coming to re-investigate the mine that was titled "That Calaveras Skull Again-Scientists Still Investigating the Old Fraud."[3] | ||||
| GJME d’Aquin | believed that the skull presented features that did not align with the rest of the known evidence for early humankind | ||||
Pseudo-archaeological Narrative
J D Whitney and later F Ward Putnam believed that the skull was evidence of the earliest human fossil in North America. Whitney believed the skull to be that of a Pliocene age (add link) despite many locals involved in the mining operation were aware that the skull was a hoax and was a part of a prank. However the belief in the validity of the skull was shared by many in the scientific community and after Whitney's announcement July 16 1899 [6] fueled much scientific literature as well as media and religious-oriented publications. [3] There are still many who believe the story of the skull despite evidence that is a hoax.
When Putnam went back to re-research the origin of the skull it was uncovered that there may have been two different skulls involved in this hoax. there was one that was a skull that was black, having been dyed by the soil it was removed from, that Schaeffle claimed was from the Salt Springs Valley, however the skull that was studied at Harvard by Whitney and later tested by others was white and carbonate-encrusted [7] There was also a radiocarbon analysis using both conventional decay and accelerator mass spectrometry done on the skull that revealed the age to be less than 1000 years old.
Archaeological Perspective
Archaeology has a goal to scientifically study human culture through the documentation and analysis of material culture. Material culture consists of physical remains and environmental data, in which include architecture, artifacts, human remains, and landscapes. In order for anthropologists to properly analyze this material in a scientific manner the context that the artifacts are found in is vital. It is this context that gives the researcher the data that allows them to gain insight into the culture that the artifact existed within.
The Calaveras Skull was never examined in situ by an expert. An archaeologist never had the chance to analyze or collect accurate and uncontaminated data. The skull was removed from the site by a miner who was not following archaeological procedures and was then passed through a number of owners before anyone began investigating the piece. From the point that the skull was allegedly discovered the data was corrupted.
The information continues to become less credible as the provenance for the skull becomes more complex. With each alleged owner the skull gets further and further from the context that it was found in and the data becomes based more in secondary sources. Within science anecdotes do not equate to reliable data. This is extremely clear when, upon review, it was revealed that the skull that scientists were analyzing in 1900s did not match the description of the skull that was studied in 1866. With two skulls any data that was collected becomes obsolete. There is no longer evidence that the research that had been done on the Calaveras skull was done on the skull that had been removed from the mine. This is a major inconsistency in the data and raises a number of questions about the legitimacy of the Calaveras skull.
More clues that the Calaveras skull was not an archaeological discovery of a Pliocene age skeleton include multiple locals admitting that the skull was a hoax, similarities to known remains of Indigenous peoples fossil remains also found in the area, inconsistencies in the features that were associated with skeletal features at that stage of evolution. Many of these clues come together and with the principle of Occam's razor make the story that the Calaveras Skull is evidence of early human in North America highly unlikely.
notes for editing and info to add
go through and add all of the citations and links
especially in the support/against section (also give full names)
make sure to go back and include all the citations fully and accurately
References
MAKE SURE TO FIX THE CITATION SO THAT THINGS ARE ITALICIZED ECT
- ↑ 1899 Preliminary Revision of the Evidence Relating to Auriferous Gravel Man in California, First paper. American Anthropologist 1:107-121.
- ↑ Whitney, J. D. 1867 Notice of a Human Skull Recently Taken From a Shaft Near Angels, Calaveras County. Proceed. Acad. Sci. 3:277-278. Also, Amer. Jour. Sci. 43:265-267. 1880 The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California. Memoirs Mus. Comp. Zool. at Harvard Coll. Mem. 6(No. 1):267-273. http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/279949?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 Dexter, Ralph W. “Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy.” American Antiquity, vol. 51, no. 02, 1986, pp. 365–369., doi:10.2307/279949
- ↑ insert
- ↑ citation for Walt Brown's 2008 In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.
- ↑ Whitney 1867,1880 FIX THE CITATION ADD LINK AND CITATION
- ↑ dexter 1986:367-368