The non-fraud of the Middle Bronze Age stone goddess from Ustica: a reverse Piltdown hoax. (News & Notes).

The non-fraud of the Middle Bronze Age stone goddess from Ustica: a reverse Piltdown hoax. (News & Notes). In 1913, Charles Dawson Charles Dawson (1864 – August 1916) was an amateur British archeologist who is credited and blamed with discoveries that turned out to be imaginative frauds, including that of the Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni), which he presented in 1912. discovered the first of two skulls found inthe Piltdown quarry in Sussex, England, skulls of an apparentlyprimitive hominid hominidAny member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. , an ancestor of man. The Piltdown Man Piltdown man,name given to human remains found during excavations (1908–15) at Piltdown, Sussex, England, by Charles Dawson. The find led to much speculation and argument. , as he becameknown, constitutes perhaps the greatest scientific fraud of the lastcentury (Turrittin n.d. (site accessed 28 December 2001); Harter n.d.).It was not until 1953, and after an estimated 500 articles and bookswere written about the remains, that the two skulls were declaredfrauds. Countless articles and books have been written since, purportingto unmask the perpetrators and to understand the why of their deception.There is no definitive answer. Numerous reasons have been suggested forsuch scientific frauds: student high jinks high jinksor hi��jinks ?pl.n.Playful, often noisy and rowdy activity, usually involving mischievous pranks.Noun 1. high jinks - noisy and mischievous merrymakinghigh jinx, hijinks, jinks (such as the recentlyreported Runestone Fakery in Minnesota, supported by an elaborate website, http:/ /www.runestonemuseum.org/runestone.htm), the lure ofcreating evidence to support one's theories, the money to be gainedfrom gullible collectors, and vanity, the chance to enhance one'sown reputation or to damage another's. One consequence of thePiltdown hoax Piltdown hoaxForgery of human fossil remains that impeded early 20th-century progress in the study of human evolution. The apparently fossilized skull found at Piltdown Common near Lewes, Eng. , though possibly not its original purpose, was to put acloud over cloud overVerb1. (of the sky or weather) to become cloudy: it was clouding over and we thought it would rain2. the career of Sir Arthur Smith-Woodard, Keeper of Geology ofthe British Museum British Museum,the national repository in London for treasures in science and art. Located in the Bloomsbury section of the city, it has departments of antiquities, prints and drawings, coins and medals, and ethnography. (Natural History). It still remains uncertain why thePiltdown Man skulls were faked, or by whom, although in the climate ofdiscovery and debate related to the antiquity of man in the later 19thand early 20th centuries the time was ripe for the faker to appear. Thatthe hoax was not unmasked for some 40 years strengthened the hand ofthose who denied any relationship between man and the other primates andthus was detrimental to the advancement of science. Archaeological fraud-did not begin or end at Piltdown. Althoughdifferent in many ways from the Piltdown Man hoax, a late 20th-centuryfraud, perpetuated on the small island of Ustica (north of Palermo,Sicily), demonstrates that archaeological hoaxing will continue as longas someone finds reasons to do so, even if it means denying the heritageof one's own country. The fraud we discuss here was not perpetratedto bolster a theory, to enhance a professional-reputation or to deceivea collector. Its purpose was to discredit professional reputations, andthose responsible for it were willing to sacrifice the first stonesculpture Stone sculpture is the result of forming 3-dimensional visually interesting objects from stone.Carving stone into sculpture is an activity older than civilization itself. of the Middle Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the found on the Italian mainland or inSicily to reach their goal. This important discovery would then beconsigned to the same fate as the Piltdown skulls and the archaeologistswho reported it would be labelled incompetent dupes. The statue, preserved height 22 cm, was discovered on the morningof 21 May 1991 (FIGURE 1). The trench in which the statue was discoveredin two fragments, well separated from each other, was under the constantsupervision of a member of the excavation staff. The field director(RRH RRH Remote Radar HeadRRH R��seau R��gional d'Hygi��ne de Basse-NormandieRRH Right Running Head (academic publications)RRH Ritchie Residence Hall (University of Akron)) was present on the site as well (Holloway & Lukesh 1995;2001). The details of the discovery have been published in full, but wemust emphasize that the statue was found only after 23 cm of earth hadbeen removed on that very morning from the stratum over it and thatthere was no indication of any recent disturbance to this layer. Becauseof its unique nature, a report was made quickly in Sicilia Archeologica(Holloway 1991). During the days immediately after the find, one of thelocal antiquarians of the island was permitted to examine the statue,which he did with some care. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] While attending the First Congress of Sicilian Prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to atCorleone in July of 1997, we were surreptitiously sur��rep��ti��tious?adj.1. Obtained, done, or made by clandestine or stealthy means.2. Acting with or marked by stealth. See Synonyms at secret. handed a pamphlet onthe archaeology of Ustica whose author, Giovanni Mannino, is a retiredexcavation assistant of the Superintendency Su`per`in`tend´en`cyn. 1. The act of superintending; superintendence. of Cultural Property of theProvince of Palermo The Province of Palermo (Italian: Provincia di Palermo) is a province in the autonomous region of Sicily, an island off the coast of Italy. Its capital is the city of Palermo. (Mannino 1997a). It was at the invitation of thethen Superintendent, Dr Carmela Angela De Stefano, that the authors ofthis paper were conducting the excavations on the island as ExternalCollaborators of the Superintendency. Together with other topics, Mannino's pamphlet contained adirect attack on the authenticity of the statue. In this pamphletMannino related how he had received a letter from the embarrassedpranksters (and archaeological amateurs) who claimed that the statue wasa piece of innocent fun playfully abandoned near the excavation trench.Much to their surprise the foreign archaeologists were completely takenin, and the pranksters were hastening to set the record straight (thoughtaking care not to reveal their identities by sending their unsignedletter through a third party). While the original pamphlet offered onlya photograph of the statue in unbroken condition (thus prior to itspurported deposit on the excavation) (FIGURE 2), a subsequent article byMannino in Sicilia Archeologica included two other photos showing thestatue, as it was claimed, in an unfinished state (Mannino 1997b) (seeFIGURE 3). The photographs offered to discredit our discovery are indeedphotographs of a similar figure, one closely copied from images of theoriginal published in our first report in Sicilia Archeologica but madeafter the fact with the sole purpose of discrediting the excavation onUstica. RRH replied to this story of the anonymous amateurs in 1997 witha detailed refutation ref��u��ta��tion? also re��fut��aln.1. The act of refuting.2. Something, such as an argument, that refutes someone or something.Noun 1. of this story, based on the slight but tellingvariations between the two figures (Holloway 1997). But even before thepublications that appeared in 1997, including a renewed attack byMannino in the same issue of Sicilia Archeologica for 1997 (Mannino,1997b), the poison was already at work, spread by rumour, `Fama malumqua non aliud velocius ullum' (Virgil Aeneid IV: 175). [FIGURES 2-3 OMIITED] The second edition of Sebastiano Tusa's La Sicilia La Sicilia is an Italian daily newspaper based in Catania, Sicily. It is the second best-selling newspaper in Sicily[2].It was founded and first published in 1945, and legally registered at the court of Catania three years later. Notes1. nellaPreistoria of 1992 contained a footnote referring to `a dubious femalesculpture' (una dubbia scultura femminile) from the excavations(Tusa 1992: 545, note 74). Robert Leighton, in his general work onSicilian prehistory in 1999, found it best not to discuss the statuebecause of its questionable authenticity, for which he could quote noprinted discussion but only hearsay hearsay:see evidence. (Leighton 1999, p. 280, note 11): Unusual evidence of figurative stone sculpture has been publishedin the form of a carved tufa slab, resembling a cult figure, similar instyle to some decorated handles of large pedestal vases from Thapsos. Ithas recently been suggested that, unbeknown to the excavators, this itemwas mischievously manufactured in recent times, and therefore I haveomitted it pending further inquiries. Franco De Angelis, in his lengthy review of archaeology in Italyand Sicily in Archaeological Reports for 2000-2001, publishes aphotograph of the statue but with the usual cautions, and citingMannino's pamphlet but neglecting to mention our refutation of hischarges in Sicilia Archeologica for 1997 (De Angelis 2001: 189): In connection with cult, serious doubts have recently been raisedas to the authenticity of the tufo sculpture of a woman; these arestated in full in G. Maimino, Ustica (Palermo, 1997). It is apparentlyrumoured that the sculpture is a modern forgery, a hoax by a group ofyoungsters; how seriously this rumour should be taken remains to beseen, but for the time being we may enjoy the sculpture, whatever itsstatus. Even the editors of ANTIQUITY felt it necessary to make a gesturein the direction of doubt when discussing the final publication of theexcavations: `A cult statue disputed by some' (Stoddart 2001: 281).Needless to say, the statue has never been displayed, despite the recentreinstallation of the antiquarium on Ustica (we last visited the islandin June of 2000). Ernesto De Miro, however, in his summary of recentarchaeological work in Sicily (De Miro 1977-98: 705) prudently refrainedfrom repeating gossip. But before the Ustica statue is forever consigned to a niche besidethe Piltdown skulls in the cavern of archaeological dubitanda, we feelcalled upon to point out once more, in a periodical that reaches aworld-wide audience and particularly the English-speaking audiencereached by Leighton and De Angelis, why the photographs published toattack the piece are those of a second figure made expressly todiscredit the original; and that original, we stress, is the solesurviving image in stone from the Italian mainland or Sicilian MiddleBronze Age. More and more authors now, writing on the prehistory of thecentral Mediterranean, will simply leave out the Ustica statue becauseit is somehow tainted, just as some students of human origins left outthe Piltdown skulls from their accounts before the hoax was proven in1953 (Sherwood Washburn quoted in Lewin 1-987: 75). In respect toPiltdown the omissions were prudent but if a genuine and unique piece ofevidence of the past is removed from discussion, then prudence hasturned into tragedy. To the proof given in Sicilia Archeologica for 1997we can now add the results of superimposed photo imagery. We will begin by repeating our direct observation from comparingphotographs of the two sculptures, to which we shall refer as `theexcavated piece' and `the fraud'. First, in the fraud the left breast of the figure is flattened. Inthe excavated piece it is fully conical. This difference is importantbecause, if the photograph of the fraud were that of an earlier state ofthe excavated piece, it is impossible to explain how the fully roundedbreast of the excavated piece appeared earlier in a flattened form.While it would have been possible to remove more stone from the figure,restoring the flattened breast to its conical shape that existstoday--JUST AS IT WAS MADE WITH NO SIGN OF ANY REPAIR--is impossible. Second, the makers of the fraud became confused in rendering theribs of the figure. At the top right side of the figure (viewer'sleft) they mistook the direction of the channel immediately below thebreast of the figure, slanting it upwards rather than downward. Thenthey also blundered in the placement of the channel below the one justmentioned. In the original piece only the upper edge of the channel ispreserved, but that upper edge meets the central area of thestatue's thorax thorax,body division found in certain animals. In humans and other mammals it lies between the neck and abdomen and is also called the chest. The skeletal frame of the thorax is formed by the sternum (breastbone) and ribs in front and the dorsal vertebrae in back. significantly lower in relation to the matchingchannel on the other side of the figure than is the case in the fraud,whose makers produced a more symmetrical pattern than that found on theoriginal. Once again, it is impossible to explain how the excavatedpiece could have a different pattern of channels on its body than whatwe are asked to believe existed in an earlier state of the samesculpture. We do not rest our case here, however. In addition to the evidencecited above we offer another set of images (FIGURE 4). The first twoimages, of the fraud on the top left and the excavated piece on the topright, have superimposed outlines--black for the fraud, grey for theexcavated piece. The third image displays the outlines onlysuperimposed. Two facts are immediately clear. The first is that in twosmall areas--one on the left and one on the right--the black outline isinside the grey, indicating that at these points the black (or fraud) issmaller than the grey (or excavated piece). Just as with the flattenedbreast described above, stone does not grow. It may be chipped or wornaway over time, but it cannot enlarge its original shape. The secondfact is the enormous care with which the fraud was created and theimplications this has for the intent of the perpetrator A term commonly used by law enforcement officers to designate a person who actually commits a crime. . [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] To this evidence provided by the photographs of both pieces, wemust emphasize again that the excavated statue was not found carelesslyabandoned in the excavation enclosure but was excavated only after 23 cmof undisturbed stratum covering it had been removed on the morning ofthe discovery. The statue was found in two pieces, both of whose surfaceand broken edges showed the same lengthy exposure to the conditions ofthe soil in which they lay as any other rock in the deposit. Finally, it is clear that the genuine Ustica statue fits perfectlyinto the repertoire of contemporary Middle Bronze Age Siciliandecorative art. A monumental chalice chalice[Lat.,=cup], ancient name for a drinking cup, retained for the eucharistic or communion cup. Its use commemorates the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper. in cup form from Thapsos nearSyracuse, exactly contemporary with the Ustica statue (14th and 13thcenturies BC), shows the same dendritic dendritic/den��drit��ic/ (den-drit��ik)1. branched like a tree.2. pertaining to or possessing dendrites.den��drit��icadj.Relating to the dendrites of nerve cells. pattern of lines and knob-likefeatures, here used to suggest breasts or eyes (FIGURE 5). [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] To summarize: the slight but telling variations between the twofigures, the demonstration of their differences by the computer overlapimage and the wear of the broken pieces show without doubt that thereare two versions of this sculpture: the excavated piece and the fraud.The fact that the perpetrator of the fraud created photographs of thework in progress proves the intent of the fraud and magnifies theseriousness of the act. Moreover, in the attempt to discredit ourcompetence in directing the excavations on Ustica, a sinister shadow wasalso thrown over the judgement of the Superintendent in inviting us toundertake the work. In recent years various covert moves againstSuperintendents of Cultural Property have been made in Sicily. DrGiuseppe Voza at Syracuse and Dr Graziella Florentini at Argrigento haveboth suffered house arrest as a result. In 1999 Dr Di Stefano herselfwas transferred from Palermo, a superintendency with responsibilitiesfor large-scale and large-budget restoration projects involving thehistoric buildings of the regional capital, to the smallersuperintendency at Trapani. The Ustica hoax may well have been part of alarger story. References DE ANGELIS, F. 2000-2001. Archaeology in Sicily 1996-2000,Archaeological Reports for 2000-2001: 144-99. DE MIRO, E. 1997-98. Rassegna Archeologica. Anni 1993-97, Kokalos43-44: 701-25. HARTER, R. A homage for Piltdown Man, http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html, site accessed 28/12/01. HOLLOWAY, R.R. 1991. Rinvenimento di una scultura della media etadel bronzo, Sicilia Archeologica 24: 81-5. 1997. Si parla di Ustica, Sicilia Archeologica 30: 13-15. HOLLOWAY, R.R. & S.S. LUKESH. 1995. Ustica I, ArchaeologiaTransatlantica XIV. 2001, Ustica II, Archaeologia Transatlantica XIX. LEIGHTON, R. 1999. Sicily before history. Ithaca (NY): CornellUniversity Press. LEWIN, R. 1987. Bones of contention: controversies in the searchfor human origins. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including . MANNINO, G. 1997a. Ustica. Palermo: privately printed. 1997 b. Sulvillaggio dei Faraglioni di Ustica, Sicilia Archeologica 30: 15-20. STODDART, S. 2001. In `Among the New Books', Antiquity 75:887-9. TURRITTIN, T. A mostly complete Piltdown Man bibliography.http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltref.html TUSA, S. 1992. La Sicilia nella Preistoria. 2nd edition. Palermo:Sellerio. SUSAN S. LUKESH & R. ROSS HOLLOWAY * * Lukesh, 144 Hofstra University, Hempstead NY 11549-1440, USA.Holloway, Center for Old World Archaeology & Art, Brown University,Providence RI 02912, USA. Received 15 March 2002, accepted 1 October 2002