.
In a resent issue of the National Geographic, I read a very interesting statement, containing
a even more interesting word. Describing a new space telescope, it was offered to have a
"absolute cold".
What was being described was of little note, it was the use of "absolute", that offered the
challenge. Can there be an "absolute"? It would seem so, if we are referring to some
feature, but then again, if we use the word careless, we could mislead.
A absolute start, assures us of an absolute end. But does an absolute cold do the same?
An absolute heat? It could be offered that the use of many terms, even in Anthropology,
can offer misconception.
The Medusa of Anthropology
Like so many snakes, the Anthropologist have unleashed the theories of evolution upon us. Each in hopes, their's will be the path to fame. After all is said, the story of man, can not be more
enticing to even the least scholarly of those among us.
Long heralded by such titles as "The missing link, ape man", and any expression even remotely
related to the story of man. But the theories of Charles Darwin, a naturalist, 1809-1882, have
done the most to offer paths to the fabled missing link, and a few dead ends. As Webster offers, "A speculative idea". Surprisingly in anthropology, theory is what the
past history is built of. This includes the history of man. The very building blocks of
man's ancient past, today rest upon theory.
True, there may be areas, that only theory will give us the answers we seek. But to allow
this weak tool to be used when facts are offered, is no less than a crime against history. If one were to select the most over used theory, it would need to be that offered by
Charles Darwin. Prior to disproving his theory, as it relates to man, one would be
obligated to describe it, and the errors in it, that appear not to work.
Back in the mid nineteenth century, Dr. Darwin, after visiting the Galapagos Island, and
studying the life, animal and fauna, would offer a theory on evolution. It is and was, Dr. Darwin's belief that life on earth, all, has survived as it is today, is due to evolution. From the first spark of life, all have transformed by natural evolution.
Sounds good, and often it maybe correct.
He offers that, a natural mutation of a species, offers a new generation, that survives due
to it's superiority over others of it's species, or as stated "survival of the fittest", will give
us a new species. This theory, could be seen world wide, and best demonstrated on secluded islands as the Galapagos and Hawaiian Islands. Seeded with life, the result of chance winds and
currents, these barren bits of earth, would develop unique species, life not found
elsewhere.
With Darwin's theory, we could account for such events or species as birds, giraffes,
and man human. All the result of natural evolution. If not questioned, this theory answers all problems of man's history. But there are problems. Problems the anthropologists, seem to find convenient to overlook.
The question I first place forward is "How do I, or any anthropologist, know man? That he
is man human, when his bones are encountered? Even with a suggested antiquity of 100
millennium years BP.?". Does the Darwin theory offer us an aid? At this great antiquity we only have his bones. There may be a bit of worked stone nearby, but no ties to the bones before us. No
evidence that other crafts were available to him.
My second question. "Is there evidence that the brain of man, upon reaching the present
size, and that of man 2,000,000 BP. evolved no more?". And third. Can there possibly be an additional form of evolution? One that could answer the above, as well as solve the problems of the creationist, the fundamentalist?
With today's theories, for us, the anthropologist has built a history for man, man human,
on little or no facts. Other than the need to conform to his colleagues, peers, the professional
push for them is personal greed.
This researcher first encountered this professional greed over thirty years ago. As an
amateur, his work had provided clues to the early history of pottery. The story of early
clay use by man, it's eventual finding a use in pottery. It had been demonstrated by a large
number of artifacts recovered at several sites.
There was not the need to offer theories, the facts were there to demonstrate history. These
facts proven by the shards and vessels recovered. Even to this day, the story remains
untold. To even find these facts, is to endanger the accepted theories, the unproven
theory in print to this day.
The latest event encountered, is the story of weaving. In the old world we have records of
many millennium of man and weaving. In the new world, the Americas, the story, based
in facts, is not near as clear.
Beyond our first hand knowledge, available at the time of white man's arrival, little is
known of weaving, prior to the fifteenth century. Even theory is limited to the small bit of the
craft that survive in prehistoric burials.
So it has been the practice to offer theory. And the race to be the first to claim the
oldest is in full gallop. Who is to counter a claim, who can produce evidence to disprove
a claim? So far it has been a few samples recovered at a few sites, that have been offered. The
great staff of life to theories has been the use of carbon dating. It, in itself, carbon 14 can
be of considerable aid, but it must be used or read in the context of how it was acquired.
The possibility of error is more than rare.
As stated in the pages and among the displays, of the Pecos Rio Grande museum, a single
recovery of a artifact, allows us to say, "This was used here". Two or three, "It may have been a common form at this site". A total of 20, 30 or more and we say, "This was a local craft". Our chance of error has become remote. To make the latter claim, after the recovery of only one or two samples, is evidence of the desire to achieve notoriety, not offer facts.
This desire, is the seed of most theories. As offered earlier, by Webster's dictionary, "A
speculative idea". A claim to man's history, must be supported by facts. Not a minor
incident, not a artifact in it's self, not the promise of fame.
At the Zueberbueler shelter, of West Texas, the opportunity was offered to unfold several of the lost pages of man's story. While it is a narrow view of man in the new world, it offers a view
of man not dimmed by what his counterpart in the old world may or may not have
accomplished. The very fact that man, of some two million years before the present era, and prior
to life in the Texas shelter, are considered one and the same, man human, offers serious
questions.
What prevented man during this time, the above millenniums, as he is
described as a human, advancing as man human, demonstrating his
"human" as in the Texas shelter? Recall, it is accepted that man of the shelter was
no less human than man of our era. We can document that man in less than a 100 years, progressed from little more than a hop off the ground, travelled to the moon and back.
The Zueberbueler site, clearly shows man as he developed new craft after new craft. Were
these cave dwellers so unique as to demonstrate an unrelated species of man? A sub
species? Or are we now offered the opportunity to offer "facts" not speculation?
Theory has never given us a path to fact, more often, it has been a hindrance to the
acceptance of truth.
David C. Reichelt, Curator,
Retired, U.S. Air Force
Pecos Rio Grande Museum
In a resent issue of the National Geographic, I read a very interesting statement, containing a even more interesting word. Describing a new space telescope, it was offered to have a "absolute cold". What was being described was of little note, it was the use of "absolute", that offered the challenge. Can there be an "absolute"? It would seem so, if we are referring to some feature, but then again, if we use the word careless, we could mislead. A absolute start, assures us of an absolute end. But does an absolute cold do the same? An absolute heat? It could be offered that the use of many terms, even in Anthropology, can offer misconception.
|
The Medusa of Anthropology
Like so many snakes, the Anthropologist have unleashed the theories of evolution upon us. Each in hopes, their's will be the path to fame. After all is said, the story of man, can not be more enticing to even the least scholarly of those among us. Long heralded by such titles as "The missing link, ape man", and any expression even remotely related to the story of man. But the theories of Charles Darwin, a naturalist, 1809-1882, have done the most to offer paths to the fabled missing link, and a few dead ends. As Webster offers, "A speculative idea". Surprisingly in anthropology, theory is what the past history is built of. This includes the history of man. The very building blocks of man's ancient past, today rest upon theory. True, there may be areas, that only theory will give us the answers we seek. But to allow this weak tool to be used when facts are offered, is no less than a crime against history. If one were to select the most over used theory, it would need to be that offered by Charles Darwin. Prior to disproving his theory, as it relates to man, one would be obligated to describe it, and the errors in it, that appear not to work. Back in the mid nineteenth century, Dr. Darwin, after visiting the Galapagos Island, and studying the life, animal and fauna, would offer a theory on evolution. It is and was, Dr. Darwin's belief that life on earth, all, has survived as it is today, is due to evolution. From the first spark of life, all have transformed by natural evolution. Sounds good, and often it maybe correct. He offers that, a natural mutation of a species, offers a new generation, that survives due to it's superiority over others of it's species, or as stated "survival of the fittest", will give us a new species. This theory, could be seen world wide, and best demonstrated on secluded islands as the Galapagos and Hawaiian Islands. Seeded with life, the result of chance winds and currents, these barren bits of earth, would develop unique species, life not found elsewhere. With Darwin's theory, we could account for such events or species as birds, giraffes, and man human. All the result of natural evolution. If not questioned, this theory answers all problems of man's history. But there are problems. Problems the anthropologists, seem to find convenient to overlook. The question I first place forward is "How do I, or any anthropologist, know man? That he is man human, when his bones are encountered? Even with a suggested antiquity of 100 millennium years BP.?". Does the Darwin theory offer us an aid? At this great antiquity we only have his bones. There may be a bit of worked stone nearby, but no ties to the bones before us. No evidence that other crafts were available to him. My second question. "Is there evidence that the brain of man, upon reaching the present size, and that of man 2,000,000 BP. evolved no more?". And third. Can there possibly be an additional form of evolution? One that could answer the above, as well as solve the problems of the creationist, the fundamentalist? With today's theories, for us, the anthropologist has built a history for man, man human, on little or no facts. Other than the need to conform to his colleagues, peers, the professional push for them is personal greed. This researcher first encountered this professional greed over thirty years ago. As an amateur, his work had provided clues to the early history of pottery. The story of early clay use by man, it's eventual finding a use in pottery. It had been demonstrated by a large number of artifacts recovered at several sites. There was not the need to offer theories, the facts were there to demonstrate history. These facts proven by the shards and vessels recovered. Even to this day, the story remains untold. To even find these facts, is to endanger the accepted theories, the unproven theory in print to this day. The latest event encountered, is the story of weaving. In the old world we have records of many millennium of man and weaving. In the new world, the Americas, the story, based in facts, is not near as clear. Beyond our first hand knowledge, available at the time of white man's arrival, little is known of weaving, prior to the fifteenth century. Even theory is limited to the small bit of the craft that survive in prehistoric burials. So it has been the practice to offer theory. And the race to be the first to claim the oldest is in full gallop. Who is to counter a claim, who can produce evidence to disprove a claim? So far it has been a few samples recovered at a few sites, that have been offered. The great staff of life to theories has been the use of carbon dating. It, in itself, carbon 14 can be of considerable aid, but it must be used or read in the context of how it was acquired. The possibility of error is more than rare. As stated in the pages and among the displays, of the Pecos Rio Grande museum, a single recovery of a artifact, allows us to say, "This was used here". Two or three, "It may have been a common form at this site". A total of 20, 30 or more and we say, "This was a local craft". Our chance of error has become remote. To make the latter claim, after the recovery of only one or two samples, is evidence of the desire to achieve notoriety, not offer facts. This desire, is the seed of most theories. As offered earlier, by Webster's dictionary, "A speculative idea". A claim to man's history, must be supported by facts. Not a minor incident, not a artifact in it's self, not the promise of fame. At the Zueberbueler shelter, of West Texas, the opportunity was offered to unfold several of the lost pages of man's story. While it is a narrow view of man in the new world, it offers a view of man not dimmed by what his counterpart in the old world may or may not have accomplished. The very fact that man, of some two million years before the present era, and prior to life in the Texas shelter, are considered one and the same, man human, offers serious questions. What prevented man during this time, the above millenniums, as he is described as a human, advancing as man human, demonstrating his "human" as in the Texas shelter? Recall, it is accepted that man of the shelter was no less human than man of our era. We can document that man in less than a 100 years, progressed from little more than a hop off the ground, travelled to the moon and back. The Zueberbueler site, clearly shows man as he developed new craft after new craft. Were these cave dwellers so unique as to demonstrate an unrelated species of man? A sub species? Or are we now offered the opportunity to offer "facts" not speculation? Theory has never given us a path to fact, more often, it has been a hindrance to the acceptance of truth.
|