Roger Bagu
Wed, Dec-20-06, 17:16
Gee and I thought it was just sci.anthropology.paleo...
http://www.dispatch.com/science/science.php?story=dispatch/20-
06/12/19/20061219-D7-02.html Harebrained hypotheses prove
invaluable to scientific debate Tuesday, December 19, 2006
BRADLEY T. LEPPER
Archaeologist Richard Michael Gramly, in the current issue of
Ohio Archaeologist, offers a startling explanation for the
rise of the Hopewell culture in Ohio and neighboring regions
2,000 years ago.
Archaeologists defined the Hopewell culture predominantly on
the basis of gigantic earthen enclosures, such as the Great
Circle and Octagon Earthworks preserved at Newark, as well as
dazzling works of art crafted from materials, such as mica and
obsidian, brought from distant lands.
For Gramly, this remarkable florescence of art and
architecture was the result of the extravagant largesse of
uberrich Hopewellian drug lords, equivalent to the drug
cartels that supported the economy of Colombia for many years
in the 1980s and ’90s.
The notorious Emilio Escobar, for example, paid for many
large-scale civic projects, such as sports stadiums and
hospitals. But, instead of cocaine, the Hopewell kingpins
supposedly acquired their wealth from controlling the
distribution of tobacco in eastern North America.
Native tobacco certainly was a potent drug, which the
Hopewell grew in their gardens and smoked in their
elaborately carved pipes.
Personally, however, I see no evidence to support Gramly’s
proposition, and I think it is about as bizarre as the notion
that because wine is used in Holy Communion, the architectural
and artistic splendor of the Vatican was bankrolled by early
Christian moonshiners. Nevertheless, I think there is value in
such seemingly outrageous ideas.
In 1926, Harvard University’s W.M. Davis published a paper in
the journal Science titled, "The Value of Outrageous
Geological Hypotheses." Davis argued that when a discipline,
which in his case was geology, got too stodgy and
conservative, it was in danger of "theoretical stagnation."
Science sometimes needs wild and seemingly harebrained ideas
to shake things up and get people thinking outside the box.
Davis wrote, "We may be pretty sure that the advances yet to
be made in geology will be at first regarded as outrages upon
the accumulated convictions of today, which we are too prone
to regard as geologically sacred."
I agree with Davis and think his insights are just as
applicable to archaeology as they are to geology. Gramly’s
outrageous hypothesis can serve a useful purpose and should
not be dismissed as "impossible" or "absurd."
Instead, it should provoke discussion about why the idea is
wrong and which alternative explanations might be better.
Vigorous, but still respectful, debate enlivens our
understanding of the data and interpretations.
Bradley T. Lepper is curator of archaeology at the Ohio
Historical Society.
blepper@ohiohistory.org
http://www.dispatch.com/science/science.php?story=dispatch/20-
06/12/19/20061219-D7-02.html Harebrained hypotheses prove
invaluable to scientific debate Tuesday, December 19, 2006
BRADLEY T. LEPPER
Archaeologist Richard Michael Gramly, in the current issue of
Ohio Archaeologist, offers a startling explanation for the
rise of the Hopewell culture in Ohio and neighboring regions
2,000 years ago.
Archaeologists defined the Hopewell culture predominantly on
the basis of gigantic earthen enclosures, such as the Great
Circle and Octagon Earthworks preserved at Newark, as well as
dazzling works of art crafted from materials, such as mica and
obsidian, brought from distant lands.
For Gramly, this remarkable florescence of art and
architecture was the result of the extravagant largesse of
uberrich Hopewellian drug lords, equivalent to the drug
cartels that supported the economy of Colombia for many years
in the 1980s and ’90s.
The notorious Emilio Escobar, for example, paid for many
large-scale civic projects, such as sports stadiums and
hospitals. But, instead of cocaine, the Hopewell kingpins
supposedly acquired their wealth from controlling the
distribution of tobacco in eastern North America.
Native tobacco certainly was a potent drug, which the
Hopewell grew in their gardens and smoked in their
elaborately carved pipes.
Personally, however, I see no evidence to support Gramly’s
proposition, and I think it is about as bizarre as the notion
that because wine is used in Holy Communion, the architectural
and artistic splendor of the Vatican was bankrolled by early
Christian moonshiners. Nevertheless, I think there is value in
such seemingly outrageous ideas.
In 1926, Harvard University’s W.M. Davis published a paper in
the journal Science titled, "The Value of Outrageous
Geological Hypotheses." Davis argued that when a discipline,
which in his case was geology, got too stodgy and
conservative, it was in danger of "theoretical stagnation."
Science sometimes needs wild and seemingly harebrained ideas
to shake things up and get people thinking outside the box.
Davis wrote, "We may be pretty sure that the advances yet to
be made in geology will be at first regarded as outrages upon
the accumulated convictions of today, which we are too prone
to regard as geologically sacred."
I agree with Davis and think his insights are just as
applicable to archaeology as they are to geology. Gramly’s
outrageous hypothesis can serve a useful purpose and should
not be dismissed as "impossible" or "absurd."
Instead, it should provoke discussion about why the idea is
wrong and which alternative explanations might be better.
Vigorous, but still respectful, debate enlivens our
understanding of the data and interpretations.
Bradley T. Lepper is curator of archaeology at the Ohio
Historical Society.
blepper@ohiohistory.org