Archaeologica.org

No, not this one.....





This one.

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Ethiopia agreed on Tuesday to exhibit its world-acclaimed archaeological find -- the 3.2 million-year-old remains of a female hominid known as Lucy -- and 190 other heritage items in America, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/sc_ ... ossil_dc_3

I did love Lucy...wacko chick!!

But, to the topic: How do you get this:







Out of this:






And, are these the same species:







Another of my favorite Lucies:

Artistic license?

Artistic license?

Yeah, guess I shouldn't criticize too harshly...who knows?

They have so little actual bone from the skull that most of the drawings are mere conjecture. They were lucky to get the pelvic and hip bones, though.

I understand the newer afarensis skeleton is a lot more intact.

Let's throw up some images, and brainstorm:

I found another picture.

pan troglodyte

A. afarensis

I think one of the most ineresting things about the difference between hominins and the ape lineage is the sagittal crest.
Afarensis doesn't look very smart, though!

I also admit a certain suspicion about the leap from a few bones to the reconstruction of a whole organism. One assumes that the anatomists can draw implications from
a couple of fragments, but I don't know anything about it myself.

stan wrote:Afarensis doesn't look very smart, though!

Uh-huh.

It hurts so good....

Here's a hot potato for discussion!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01753.html

Rick Potts, the director of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program and an influential paleoanthropologist, said he and many other scientists agree that Lucy is too fragile to travel. He said the Ethiopian artifacts would not come to the Smithsonian.

However, the real point of contention is this:

Potts said he also objected to the use of the fossil as a tourist attraction. "The value of these things to the scientific community comes first," said Potts.

So people, here is where the rubber hits the road. It's all well and good to act like scientific research comes first however Mr. Potts misses the point that 'science' also needs money and that these museums and the Ethiopian government stand to rake in a lot of badly needed funds from an exhibition of these (and other) artifacts. It's a cinch that people are not going to travel to Ethiopia in any great numbers just to see these bones.

Thus I put the question to you for discussion: "Should archaeological/artistic treasures be put on display in order to generate revenue for the museums or other institutions which support them?"

My answer is yes, but not if the remains (this is a body) are damaged in the process. Especially these remains....since they are so rare and need to be preserved for future analysis with more advanced techniques.

My 2 cents.

Understood, Stan, but nothing in life is ever completely safe. In spite of every precaution a plane carrying such an artifact could crash. By the same token, however, an earthquake could level the museum in which they are permanently housed.

I'd have to say yes also. I imagine that artifacts can generate a lot of revenue for museums and the resulting tourist money is helpful to the host country.

How that money is spent may be another issue though.