Museums that threw out meteorite collections in the late 1700s

[Ersby]

Hello. I recently found an answer to a question that I'd been wondering about for some time, and I thought I'd put it up here in case anyone else had heard of the same thing and wanted to know more too.

Several times over the years, I've read the claim that in the late 18th century the scientific establishment so comprehensively rubbished the eye-witness reports of meteorites, that museums across Europe threw out their collections of meteorie specimins. Two examples of this are:

Quote:

“So great was the prestige of the committee and so convincing its arguments that museums all over Western Europe threw away their meteorite specimens.”
Chris Carter, “Parapsychology and the Skeptics”, 2007

Quote:

“Museums all over Europe had thrown out their cherished meteorite specimens with the rubbish as humiliating reminders of a superstitious past. Today scarcely a single specimen is known that predates 1790, except for the 280-pound stone that fell in Alsace in 1492, that is kept in the town hall of Ensisheim, and that proved too heavy for even the Academie Fancaise to dislodge.”
Richard Milton, “Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment”, 1996

And this claim pops up on the occasional web site as an example of why mainstream science can't be trusted. It was such an interesting claim, that I wanted to find out more.

A reference, when one is given, points us to Paneth, “Science and Miracle”, Durham University Journal. Keen to find out more about this travesty of science, I paid for a copy of the paper, where I read:

Quote:

“it is a sad reflection that in those days many public museums threw away whatever they possessed of these precious meteorites; it happened in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy and Austria.”

So, not quite “all over Europe”, but across five countries. But still quite an event.

Still wanting to know more, I kept searching periodically until recently I found this quote from the book “Cosmic Debris: Meteorites in History”, by John G. Burke (available on Google Books)

From Chapter 6:

Quote:

“Chladni, in his Uber Feuer-Meteore (1819), decried the fact that some meteorites in collections were discarded in the eighteenth century, terming their removal “Enlightenment vandalism.” These acts, he wrote, occurred at five places: Dresden, Vienna, Copenhagen, Bern and Verone; and they involved meteorites from two sixteenth-century and four seventeenth century falls”

So the claim has changed from a mass deletion of data entailing museums from across Europe, to it happening in just five museums, concerning the collections from six falls. Not so dramatic. Burke goes on to explain that museums didn't really exist in the way we understand them in the late 1700s, and he points out some questionable aspects of these collections, before adding:

Quote:

“Yet of the twenty seven falls in the eighteenth century that are now considered to have actually occurred, specimens of eighteen (two thirds) still exist in collections.”

So if you do find yourself faced with someone who uses this as an example of how dishonest science is in the face of new data, you can explain to them how it's an example of how lazy new age writers are in chasing up their references.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Ersby

So if you do find yourself faced with someone who uses this as an example of how dishonest science is in the face of new data, you can explain to them how it's an example of how lazy new age writers are in chasing up their references.

Interesting. However, to people who try to judge modern science by 18th century events, I have a more general reply.

Hans

[Big Les]

Very interesting Ersby. I'm a museum curator myself, and would also point out that;

a) Very few museum objects that survive today have been in museum collections since the 1700s. I think you'll find that 'scarcely a single specimen' of virtually any category of object dates from pre-1790 (in terms of when it was collected obviously, not when it was made - in the case of meteorites this is more often going to be approximately the same date).

b) With no best practice, documentation, or standards of any kind, any museum could throw away, destroy, sell or exchange any object in its collection - and many will have done. Knowing whether a given meteorite specimen was disposed of at all is going to be next to impossible - let alone the reasons for doing so.

[Darat]

Fascinating post Ersby; interesting to see the process of Chinese whispers in action.

[Big Les]

Take the British Museum, and the Natural History Museum that spun off from it later (same geological collection).

Originally Posted by NHM website

The Natural History Museum in London houses one of the world's finest collections of meteorites, with around 2,000 individual specimens represented. The collection has grown from small beginnings: the first three meteorites were acquired by the British Museum in 1802, just as the general acceptance that meteorites were natural phenomena was gaining ground.

I think it's safe to say that the BM was a world-leading institution, and even it was little more than a cabinet of curiosities up to c1780 (with no bloody meteorites in the first place!).

[marksman]

I was initially astounded that it wasn't until the early 19th century that there was "general acceptance that meteorites were natural phenomena". Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1453. Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in 1632. But then I found (thanks to Wikipedia) that the astronomer Johann Daniel Titius von Wittenburg first observed the asteroid belt in 1760, and it wasn't until 1802 that William Herschel first coined the term "asteroid".

So it makes sense that people weren't saving rocks until the early 1800's. When did anybody even first hypothesize there were space rocks falling to Earth? Again, according to Wikipedia, it was Ernst Florens Chladni in 1794. 1794!

What did people think these rocks were before 1794? I presume, only weird looking rocks.

The fact that it took only eight years for science to accept this new theory of meteorites indicates that science is actually handling things pretty darn well.

[blutoski]

To be frank, I have a different approach to the "Galileo Gambit^WP"

I would turn it around: how does this person know that it was wrong to throw out alleged meteorites? Is he saying that meteorites are not really from outerspace?

The claim is self-contradictory: either he thinks science is capable of constructing reliable knowlege about the universe (in which case, it was a shame that meteorites were thrown out) or science isn't capable of constructing reliable knowlege about the universe (in which case, maybe those were just rocks after all, so it's a bad example).

ie: fish or cut bait

[ThePoliteSkeptic]

Way to deflate an extreme exaggeration. Now, I hate to break it to you, but this is not the end of the story of museums throwing away all of their meteorites.

It's just the beginning...

[Ersby]

Well, don't stop there.

[RationalVetMed]

Originally Posted by Ersby

So if you do find yourself faced with someone who uses this as an example of how dishonest science is in the face of new data, you can explain to them how it's an example of how lazy new age writers are in chasing up their references.

Excellent bit of detective work - well done Mr Poirot!

Yuri

[cj.23]

Yes, I read an article on this in last month's Fortean Times. The author of this only found one museum that threw meteorites out - but sets the whole business in context. Worth reading it may actually still be the current issue, if not I might be able to get it to you Ersby

cj x

[paiute]

Bookmark this site for use as an emergency emetic:

http://www.chabadsrilanka.com/page.asp?pageID={AF695233-2BD7-4F58-ABEE-C33FDA39EE70}&displayAll=1

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Yes, I read an article on this in last month's Fortean Times. The author of this only found one museum that threw meteorites out - but sets the whole business in context. Worth reading it may actually still be the current issue, if not I might be able to get it to you Ersby

cj x

I had a quick look. It's on the site.

http://www.forteantimes.com/features...eteor_man.html

While the point is done and dusted, I'd be interested in knowing what the 1968 reference for this myth was.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by paiute

Bookmark this site for use as an emergency emetic:

http://www.chabadsrilanka.com/page.asp?pageID={AF695233-2BD7-4F58-ABEE-C33FDA39EE70}&displayAll=1

"Two thousands meteors thunderously pummeled the French countryside"? Hmmm. Bit of an exaggeration. Mind you, I've seen one author on the internet boldly state that a meteor hit the headquaters of the French Academy of Science itself!

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by ThePoliteSkeptic

Way to deflate an extreme exaggeration. Now, I hate to break it to you, but this is not the end of the story of museums throwing away all of their meteorites.

It's just the beginning...

Oh, and once last thing, while I'm bumping this thread to the top. When I read this post, I thought the Polite Skeptic had more examples of museums throwing out meteorites, but he hadn't. I asked him on his blog, and he explained. It seems that when he wrote "this is not the end of the story..." he meant "this is not the end for the story", meaning that this tale of bad science will continue to be told, despite evidence to the contrary.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Ersby

“Yet of the twenty seven falls in the eighteenth century that are now considered to have actually occurred, specimens of eighteen (two thirds) still exist in collections."

Which still means that nine genuine meteorites were thrown out, presumably because they weren't deemed politically correct by the scientific establishment.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Which still means that nine genuine meteorites were thrown out, presumably because they weren't deemed politically correct by the scientific establishment.

No. Could have been sold or lost in error.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Which still means that nine genuine meteorites were thrown out, presumably because they weren't deemed politically correct by the scientific establishment.

Perhaps. But compare that to the idea of museums everywhere throwing out all of their meteorites, which is what the original story said, and which is what you posted a couple of days ago.

What do you know think of the source that told you this story? Do you think it can be trusted? Aren't you annoyed that it passed incorrect information to you? Does it bother you at all?

[Gilmar]

Very nice research, Ersby, and blutoski makes a great point.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Perhaps. But compare that to the idea of museums everywhere throwing out all of their meteorites, which is what the original story said, and which is what you posted a couple of days ago.

What do you know think of the source that told you this story? Do you think it can be trusted? Aren't you annoyed that it passed incorrect information to you? Does it bother you at all?

Apparently, this story originated with Richard Milton's book Alternative Science (Fourth Estate, 1991): "Milton told me he can no longer recall the source that he got it from – which is fair enough 18 years after he wrote it." See http://www.forteantimes.com/features...eteor_man.html Obviously, Milton should have documented his source, but it's quite clear from a number of sources that meteorites were long discounted by the scientific establishment:

"Isaac Newton and other savants in the 1600s were well aware of the myriad reports throughout history of stones falling from the sky, but summarily dismissed them as folk tales and so much 'vulgar superstition'. They would not gainsay 2000 years of the wisdom of their hero Aristotle who had decreed that no small bodies exist in space beyond the Earth and her Moon, and that the Earth is at the center of the solar system." See http://www.semp.us/publications/biot...php?BiotID=452

[Ersby]

You're mixing up two different things. Clearly new age writers have been peddling a shaggy dog story but I think, on the broader picture, MRC_Hans' earlier response is both short and to the point.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Apparently, this story originated with Richard Milton's book Alternative Science (Fourth Estate, 1991): "Milton told me he can no longer recall the source that he got it from – which is fair enough 18 years after he wrote it." See http://www.forteantimes.com/features...eteor_man.html Obviously, Milton should have documented his source, but it's quite clear from a number of sources that meteorites were long discounted by the scientific establishment:

"Isaac Newton and other savants in the 1600s were well aware of the myriad reports throughout history of stones falling from the sky, but summarily dismissed them as folk tales and so much 'vulgar superstition'. They would not gainsay 2000 years of the wisdom of their hero Aristotle who had decreed that no small bodies exist in space beyond the Earth and her Moon, and that the Earth is at the center of the solar system." See http://www.semp.us/publications/biot...php?BiotID=452

Interesting. I'd always heard that Newtons first four laws resolved the question of orbits. That sort of connotes a "belief" in heliocentricity. I think I might automatically discount the intelligence of an author who cited Newton as a geocentrist. (I know it was a while ago, but you do realize where Newton was, date-wise, in relation to Copernicus and Galileo, don't you?)

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Interesting. I'd always heard that Newtons first four laws resolved the question of orbits. That sort of connotes a "belief" in heliocentricity. I think I might automatically discount the intelligence of an author who cited Newton as a geocentrist. (I know it was a while ago, but you do realize where Newton was, date-wise, in relation to Copernicus and Galileo, don't you?)

Yes, but Newton's belief in heliocentricity is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As Ursula Marvin noted in a 1996 article titled “Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" (Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1996, Volume 31, p. 551), Newton stated that "to make way for the regular and lasting Motions of the Planets and Comets, it’s necessary to empty the Heavens of all Matter, except perhaps some very thin Vapours, Steams, or Effluvia arising from the Atmospheres of the Earth, Planets, and Comets." That same article details the close-mindedness of the late 18th Century scientific community toward meteorites and notes that some people who had witnessed them were afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule.

[esquel]

Originally Posted by rjh01

No. Could have been sold or lost in error.

I know of at least one relatively recent meteorite to which this happened. The Palolo Valley meteorite fell in December 1946, actually punching a hole in someone's house. The potato sized rock was recovered and added to the Bishop Museum's collection in Honolulu, but at some time over the years, the museum lost track of the meteorite. At this point, its exact whereabouts are unknown. I've been trying to find a picture of the meteorite for a friend, but all documentation except for the most cursory has disappeared. Bad curating? Light fingered janitors? Who knows? I do know it would not have been thrown out as long as someone knew what it was.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Yes, but Newton's belief in heliocentricity is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As Ursula Marvin noted in a 1996 article titled “Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" (Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1996, Volume 31, p. 551), Newton stated that "to make way for the regular and lasting Motions of the Planets and Comets, it’s necessary to empty the Heavens of all Matter, except perhaps some very thin Vapours, Steams, or Effluvia arising from the Atmospheres of the Earth, Planets, and Comets." That same article details the close-mindedness of the late 18th Century scientific community toward meteorites and notes that some people who had witnessed them were afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule.

If his belief is irrelevant then why did you quote that idiotic statement about his belief that Aristotle's world view was the holy of holies? I mean, you didn't quote the article at all, and the article itself offers nothing surprising.

You googled. You found what you thought was a winning and telling statement about Newton. You posted it. It was wrong, either deliberately so, or it was an error because the author of the piece knew nothing about Newton, either.

Not that you had that much credibility to begin with, but this sort of thing doesn't lend you any more.

And, as has been pointed out, some brilliant minds believed some weird stuff. I would not be at all surprised to find out the Newton was very interested in meteorites, as any un-natural(as in "not found in your backyard") minerals were believed to be of use in alchemy and he had a noted belief in alchemy. Does that make him an idiot? Or does it merely make him wrong - on that topic?

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

And, as has been pointed out, some brilliant minds believed some weird stuff.

That's not the issue -- the issue is the attempt on the part of a number of scientists to try and silence debate on meteorites by ridiculing them as impossible. For example:

"After the fall of a meteorite was witnessed and described in a document notarized by the mayor and 300 citizens of Barbotan, France, in 1791, scientist Pierre Berthollet lamented:

'How sad it is that the entire municipality enters folk tales upon an official record, presenting them as something actually seen, while they cannot be explained by physics or anything reasonable.'" See http://www.amazon.com/Meteorites-the...der_0521587514

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Rodney

That's not the issue -- the issue is the attempt on the part of a number of scientists to try and silence debate on meteorites by ridiculing them as impossible.

But this happens in all walks of life. Looking at this part of history without the distractions of new-age propaganda, it's a example of how science can change and adapt. Bearing in mind the difficulties in comparing 21st and 18th century science, I'm quite sure that the debate over meteorites isn't as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Rodney

That's not the issue -- the issue is the attempt on the part of a number of scientists to try and silence debate on meteorites by ridiculing them as impossible. For example:

"After the fall of a meteorite was witnessed and described in a document notarized by the mayor and 300 citizens of Barbotan, France, in 1791, scientist Pierre Berthollet lamented:

'How sad it is that the entire municipality enters folk tales upon an official record, presenting them as something actually seen, while they cannot be explained by physics or anything reasonable.'" See http://www.amazon.com/Meteorites-the...der_0521587514

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Yet other scientists were formulating the actual theories of the true origins of meteorites. This kind of thing happens/happened all the time. Why, I've heard that there were scientists who said we'd never split the atom. Still other scientists were working on splitting that atom. There were quote end quote scientists who opposed Galileo.

There were establishment shrinks who thought Reich was a little nuts. Oh, wait..... (As Sagan pointed out... "they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.) This ridiculing is just another way of questioning, ultimately. It's the crucible in which new ideas are tested and proved.

So, the point is that the establishment always throws up roadblocks to new ideas? That's pretty obvious. That's the point of the OP, with an added sub-clause. The establishment always throws up roadblocks to new ideas, but it's no where near as draconian and deliberate as New Age mythologists are trying to make it sound.

[Foolmewunz]

Ersby,
While I'm getting caught up in the crossfire, I just wanted to add my kudos. Nice little pocket of researching you've done here!

[paximperium]

Great bit of skepticism Ersby.
It took way more work and effort than our resident woo-google "researcher".

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Ersby,
While I'm getting caught up in the crossfire, I just wanted to add my kudos. Nice little pocket of researching you've done here!

I also commend Ersby on his research, but I don't think it succeeded in uncovering all of the pertinent facts. For example, the paper I referenced by Ursula Marvin (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) noted that Ernst Chladni "wrote when he finished his book he hesitated to publish it because of the hostile reactions to be expected." (“Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" at p. 552.) And Domenico Tata, Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Naples, "was convinced of the authenticity of this (June 1794 Siena meteorite) fall, and said he had intended to publish a full description of it but was dissuaded by friends who warned him that he would be ridiculed by 'Savants' and, worse yet, by 'Half-Savants who are the more to be feared." (Same source at p. 560).

So, one researcher was reluctant to publish his findings, but ultimately summoned the courage to do so; the other did not publish his findings. Not exactly the best type of atmosphere for academic research.

[Ersby]

I'd imagine it's almost impossible to uncover all of the pertinent facts, since it all happened so long ago. For example, why were the French in particular so hostile towards the idea? Probably due to political pressures from the newly established French Republic, from what I've read, but I'll admit I'm not going to research that in too much depth.

As for the fall at Siena, the same article you reference gives details of three others who did publish reports suggesting the rocks fell from the sky, which you must've read because they're listed before the person who didn't, so why didn't you mention them? Aren't you interested in all the pertinent facts? And remember the Siena fall was before Chladni's work was published.

The article is very good, and I should thank Rodney because if he hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have found it. You can read it here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996M%26PS...31..545M

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Aren't you interested in all the pertinent facts?

I think it's fair to say that we each approached this subject with a different perspective. Mine was that the scientific establishment of the late 18th Century was not interested in a fair and balanced debate about the existence of meteorites, and so my posts have addressed that point.

Originally Posted by Ersby

The article is very good, and I should thank Rodney because if he hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have found it.

Hmmm, we agree, and so readers beware.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Rodney

I think it's fair to say that we each approached this subject with a different perspective. Mine was that the scientific establishment of the late 18th Century was not interested in a fair and balanced debate about the existence of meteorites, and so my posts have addressed that point.

Whereas my point was that new age writers are not interested in a fair and balanced debate on the history of science, which this post...

Quote:

So, one researcher was reluctant to publish his findings, but ultimately summoned the courage to do so; the other did not publish his findings. Not exactly the best type of atmosphere for academic research.

... demonstrates.

[Foolmewunz]

Rodney,
Please find me one (just one) major scientific breakthrough where the entire scientific commuity just threw all of their old texts in the fire. Every major advance has a more conservative group of scientists or scholars or researchers who decry it as nonsense.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein....

Ersby is not agreeing with you. You cite one who refused to publish and one who reluctantly published as part of your proof, but the article points out three others who did publish. So four published. Yeah, sounds like the scientific community was shutting down experimental and radical theories to me.

Or - it sounds like you're cherry picking.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Yeah, sounds like the scientific community was shutting down experimental and radical theories to me.

Fortunately, it did not have the power to do that, but who knows how long it would have been for meteorites to have been accepted if it were not for a fortuitous series of falls in the late 18th and early 19th Century? Do you think it was okay in that era that "witnesses to actual falls were withholding their evidence for fear of ridicule"? (Marvin at p. 585).

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Yes, but Newton's belief in heliocentricity is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As Ursula Marvin noted in a 1996 article titled “Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" (Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1996, Volume 31, p. 551), Newton stated that "to make way for the regular and lasting Motions of the Planets and Comets, it’s necessary to empty the Heavens of all Matter, except perhaps some very thin Vapours, Steams, or Effluvia arising from the Atmospheres of the Earth, Planets, and Comets." That same article details the close-mindedness of the late 18th Century scientific community toward meteorites and notes that some people who had witnessed them were afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule.

Of course the difference is that there really are meteorites.

Things seen in the sky with no physical evidence will never cut it.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Do you think it was okay in that era that "witnesses to actual falls were withholding their evidence for fear of ridicule"? (Marvin at p. 585).

No, it's not okay. Suppressing information just because it offends you personally is a Bad Thing. And you should stop doing it.