The Importance of Context

As we have learned from our judicial system, context is key. Once the context is removed, a piece of information can be twisted and turned into anything the interpreter wants it to be.

Therefore, in the case of science where the goal is to come as close to the truth as possible and improve on what we already know, context is important.

We didn't come to realize this in paleontology until fairly recently. Before it was really a science, people just liked seeing dinosaurs mounted. Thus, the important thing was to yank as many bones out of the ground as possible that could be forced together into menacing looking monsters for the public to ogle at, whether the positions were accurate or not. The important thing was to please a crowd and be famous.

Times have changed and we are becoming more and more scientific. It is no longer enough to know that dinosaurs existed, but to know how and in what conditions they existed. This involves now looking for microfossils, gaining an understanding of geology, attempting chemistry to understand physiology, taking soil samples, doing lab tests whenever possible on taphonomy, looking through the lens modern ecology, and mapping.

 With ecology, it  has meant coming to understand what ancient ecosystems looking like, and looking at organisms that aren't always big and huge and exciting to look at in museums. Sometimes it means breaking down and looking through a microscope, and doing some research to understand relationships between organisms, thus giving us a window into what they may have been adapted for and thus revealing the conditions they may have lived in. This can also be supported by isotope chemistry and stratigraphy. For example, the presence of ripples would mean water, and certain isotopes of oxygen would as well.

We are also beginning to learn more about ancient environments and their effects on fossilization. And fossilization itself. This is taphonomy, that is, the study of how things decompose (or cease to do so.) The reason that fossils are generally in really nice condition in comparison to how archeologists often find bodies and remains is because any dinosaur that doesn't preserve would long since have decomposed completely, thus we would have no trace of them. We're just beginning to understand these processes and ask the questions that can eventually lead to more answers about the environments that the animals preserved in.

And then there is the rise of mapping in paleontology. We can get a lot of information from where fossils are found in the ground. Part of the reason that we didn't know for a long time what stegosaurus looked like is because Marsh described the species from boxes of unmapped fossils sent to him from the field. While today we know that stegosaurus had four tail spikes, for example, Marsh actually named several species based on different numbers of spikes, only to find out that the sets found in the field hadn't been kept separate. Now articulation (finding a group of fossils together), as well as how bones from multiple animals are related to each other in space, is information that is considered irreparably valuable. Some researchers are even starting to look at the 3D orientation of bones using photography as well as drawings, and then putting everything into computer programs to reconstruct how the fossils were. 

From such modelling, we can actually go as far to recreate how the bones were oriented in space. At Cleveland Lloyd, you can find a set of casts oriented how they were found in the ground, showing how scattered everything was found (thus suggesting that there was no current flowing), without having to be able to see through the ground to the bones. Great for any visitor who isn't superman.

That said, when we lose the context of fossils, basically the only information left to us is what the animal looked like. Which is great, except we have a pretty good idea of what dinosaurs looked like now. That's why there is so much controversy surrounding specimens like Sue and the famous "dueling dinos." You see, scientists get excited over the research value of fossils. Once they've been removed from context, as these specimens and others have and were prior to being acquired by museums (if they ever have been acquired by museums), they really don't have any scientific value anymore. Which is ironic, because this is the value that sends scientists racing to acquire fossils and makes people think they are worth so much money. Honestly, they're worth their weight in rocks money-wise. And once they've been removed from context, they no longer have value.

Cleveland Lloyd is actually kind of a sad site... there are fossils that were removed in the past without any kind of mapping, without any record of where they came from. Most of them are still sitting in blocks of limestone, discarded. This hurts to see, honestly, because some of these bones represent toes or vertebrae or skulls, the rare bones to find in paleontology.

I guess I shouldn't say they have no value. They have no monetary value. Actually, they never did.

But once a fossil loses its context, it can still serve a higher purpose. That's education. Back home, we have mines that dig through fossils and discard them. Sad but true. But those fossils then get sent around the east coast to be used to teach kids about paleontology and get them excited about science. This is a wonderful purpose.

People making a profit off of fossils hurts both research and education. After all, they belong to those who love learning and sharing knowledge. I honestly feel that anyone who tries to deal and buy and sell vertebrate fossils doesn't understand the beauty of what they hold in their hands and how much can be gained from it that is worth more than money. Legal or not (depending on where you live.) 

These, folks, are priceless.