Speaker 1: Welcome to Criminalia, a production of Shondaland Audio in partnership
Speaker 1: with iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: When a group of miners uncovered a skull deep in
Speaker 2: a mine shaft on the western slopes of Bald Mountain
Speaker 2: near a gold mining camp called Angels Camp in Calaveras County, California,
Speaker 2: it was believed, at least initially, to be a history
Speaker 2: changing discovery. The owner of the mine, Illinois born blacksmith
Speaker 2: James Mattinson, had originally gone west during the California Gold Rush.
Speaker 2: He had little to no luck finding gold or any
Speaker 2: other precious metals or anything really, and it said that
Speaker 2: Mattinson didn't know at first what it was that he'd
Speaker 2: dug up that day in February of eighteen sixty six.
Speaker 2: It was when the skull was sent to the state
Speaker 2: geologist of California, J. D. Whitney, who was also a
Speaker 2: professor of geology at Harvard Universe when things went a
Speaker 2: bit bonkers. Welcome to Criminalia. I'm Maria Tremarchy and.
Speaker 1: I'm Holly Fry. Mattinson had first showed the fossil to
Speaker 1: a local man who lived in the mining town, and
Speaker 1: he in turn brought it to an Angel's camp merchant
Speaker 1: named Philip Scribner. Scribner recognized that it was a human skull,
Speaker 1: and he cleaned it up and sent it off to
Speaker 1: physician and natural history buff doctor William Jones, who, although
Speaker 1: we aren't one hundred percent sure, likely lived in nearby
Speaker 1: San Francisco. Jones was blown away by the potential of
Speaker 1: the discovery, and he was the one who sent the
Speaker 1: skull to J. D. Whitney. Upon examining this skull, Whitney
Speaker 1: determined that it was an amazing find. He believed that
Speaker 1: it belonged to a ply a scene age man, which
Speaker 1: would have made it the oldest known record of human
Speaker 1: existence in North America. And that wasn't the only thing.
Speaker 1: It also suggests that humans had lived in the Americas
Speaker 1: for much longer than scientists had previously thought.
Speaker 2: Let's take a minute for a bit of science and
Speaker 2: history to get our bearings on this time frame. The
Speaker 2: Pliocene is the epic of geologic time scale that extends
Speaker 2: from roughly five point four million to two point four
Speaker 2: million years ago. Today, most scientists recognize some fifteen to
Speaker 2: twenty different species of early humans, though there is disagreement
Speaker 2: about how those species are related. As well as which
Speaker 2: ones just died out over time. Fossils of the first
Speaker 2: known hominids or human like primates, who lived between six
Speaker 2: million and two million years ago, universally come from the
Speaker 2: African continent. It's believed that early humans first migrated out
Speaker 2: of Africa into Asia probably between two million and one
Speaker 2: point eight million years ago, and there's no evidence of
Speaker 2: humans in Europe until between one point five million and
Speaker 2: one million years ago. It took even more time for
Speaker 2: humans to populate the rest of the world. When it
Speaker 2: comes to the Americas, there's no evidence there were humans
Speaker 2: there until the past thirty thousand years or so. So
Speaker 2: a Haminid skull dating to the Pla saying that was
Speaker 2: both exciting and a bit of a scandalous announcement.
Speaker 1: Whitney didn't just examine the skull, though. He went to
Speaker 1: Angel's camp, he visited the mine, and he spoke with
Speaker 1: both Mattinson and Scribner. The men explained that Mattinson dug
Speaker 1: up the skull in his mind, and though he originally
Speaker 1: thought it was probably nothing more than a tree route,
Speaker 1: when it was cleaned up at Scrubner's store, everyone realized
Speaker 1: it was a skull, and that's when they brought in
Speaker 1: doctor Jones for his counsel and advice. It's reported that
Speaker 1: Whitney believed both Mattinson and Scribner were being truthful, and
Speaker 1: he carried on with his investigative work. He concluded that
Speaker 1: the skull was authentic and that it dated the Pliocene epoch.
Speaker 1: That was definitely a stretch, but at the time it
Speaker 1: was almost kind of, sort of within reason to make
Speaker 1: that leap. Separate from this find. Others had claimed to
Speaker 1: have found ancient stone tools like mortars and pestles under
Speaker 1: the hills of Calaveras County. Those finds opened up the
Speaker 1: possibility of that older age. The tools, and now the skull,
Speaker 1: it was thought, could change what experts thought about human
Speaker 1: evolution and in particular in North America.
Speaker 2: On July eighteenth, eighteen sixty six, Whitney presented a paper
Speaker 2: to the California Academy of Natural Sciences describing the skull,
Speaker 2: explaining it had been recently found in Calaveras County. He
Speaker 2: described his discovery in a mine shaft at a depth
Speaker 2: of one hundred and thirty feet. It had been found
Speaker 2: in oriiferous gravel deposits of a Pliocene river that had
Speaker 2: been buried beneath million year old volcanic deposits. The San
Speaker 2: Francisco Alta summed up with Beney's talk the following day,
Speaker 2: reporting quote, the skull is therefore not only the earliest
Speaker 2: pioneer of this state, but the oldest known human being.
Speaker 2: It is scarcely necessary to say that the announcement and
Speaker 2: remarks of Professor Whitney made a profound sensation at the Academy.
Speaker 2: He later exhibited the skull in August of eighteen sixty
Speaker 2: eight at the Chicago meeting of the American Association for
Speaker 2: the Advancement of Science.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a break here for a word
Speaker 1: from our sponsors, and when we return, we will talk
Speaker 1: about how there's always a butt.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's talk about the debate over
Speaker 2: whether or not the skull was real and if it
Speaker 2: was really as old as some people thought.
Speaker 1: So many of our stories that we've told have a
Speaker 1: moment where we have to talk about something that sounds
Speaker 1: incredibly cool or interesting, and then we have to follow
Speaker 1: it up with butt. All right, So here's the butt
Speaker 1: for this one. Some scholars challenged the authenticity of the
Speaker 1: skull while others did not, and it started a controversy
Speaker 1: between those who insisted the skull had been planted at
Speaker 1: the mine and those who insisted it was genuine. An
Speaker 1: article in the Harvard Register reported that the Calaveras skull
Speaker 1: quote has been mercilessly assailed as a hoax, not on
Speaker 1: account of any suspicious circumstances attending its discovery, but because
Speaker 1: it was predetermined in the minds of many that man
Speaker 1: did not live at so ancient a time. The skull
Speaker 1: looked others believed like it belonged to a human from
Speaker 1: centuries earlier, probably from an indigenous tribe now referred to
Speaker 1: as the Northern Sierra Miwok. Some assumed that that's what
Speaker 1: it probably was. Prominent geologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists from several
Speaker 1: universities examined the skull, but it actually took many decades
Speaker 1: before the skull was decisively determined to be a fake.
Speaker 2: Scientists were concerned that the artifact had been removed before
Speaker 2: anyone with any kind of reputable authority could examine it
Speaker 2: in the ground where it was found, but that wasn't
Speaker 2: the only problem. There was a lot of disagreement within
Speaker 2: the scientific community some people assumed it was the result
Speaker 2: of an unfortunate mining accident. Skeptics also believed the skull
Speaker 2: was just too modern to come from the Pliocene Age.
Speaker 2: Some scholars believed it was just a practical joke played
Speaker 2: by miners.
Speaker 1: Whitney took the skull to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Where archaeologist William H. Holmes examined it, and
Speaker 1: Holmes was well it was not on board with the
Speaker 1: idea that this was a genuine find. In his analysis,
Speaker 1: he had discovered that the sediment embedded in it, it
Speaker 1: turned out, couldn't have come from the mind deposit. When
Speaker 1: the skull was exhumed, it was still partially encased in
Speaker 1: the material in which it was found. Loose sediment had
Speaker 1: been brushed away by Scribner, and in that material Holmes
Speaker 1: found bones, a shell bed that resembled those made by
Speaker 1: indigenous peoples, and a snail shell from a modern type
Speaker 1: of snail. Whitney had thought that the skull had bounced
Speaker 1: along an ancient Pliocene river, where it must have settled
Speaker 1: in sediments containing these tidbits. Holmes disagreed to him and
Speaker 1: to other experts. The findings suggested that the skull had
Speaker 1: come from somewhere else and been put in the mind.
Speaker 1: He concluded that quote, it thus appears that the so
Speaker 1: called Calivera's skull exhibits nothing in its character, condition, or
Speaker 1: associated phenomena incompatible with the theory of recent origin, and
Speaker 1: very much that may be justly construed as favoring that theory.
Speaker 2: By eighteen sixty nine, skepticism was spread. A mister Blakesley
Speaker 2: wrote in an edition of the San Francisco bulletin that year, quote,
Speaker 2: we believe the whole story worthy of no scientific credence.
Speaker 2: A minister told us the miners freely told him that
Speaker 2: the whole affair was a joke. Despite the critics and
Speaker 2: the stories, Whitney continued to believe it was a genuine find,
Speaker 2: and by the eighteen nineties many in the academic community
Speaker 2: continued to accept it as genuine, but it was becoming
Speaker 2: more and more obvious among scientists that it really just
Speaker 2: didn't fit into the fossil record of human evolution. In
Speaker 2: nineteen oh one, F. W. Putnam, who had replaced Whitney
Speaker 2: at Harvard, visited California and learned that In eighteen sixty five,
Speaker 2: a number of indigenous skulls had been dug up from
Speaker 2: a nearby tribal burial site, and that skulls had been
Speaker 2: planted in the Bald Mountain mine. Putnam concluded, quote, it
Speaker 2: may be impossible, ever to determine, to the satisfaction of
Speaker 2: the archaeologist, the place where the skull was actually found.
Speaker 1: So this is a good time to talk about something
Speaker 1: that's been the creeping supporting character in this entire forgery season,
Speaker 1: and that's confirmation bias. In the twenty twenty two edition
Speaker 1: of Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, authors Caleb W. Lac and Jacques
Speaker 1: Rousseau describe confirmation bias in the chapter Mental Health, pop Psychology,
Speaker 1: and the Misunderstanding of Clinical Psychology, and their description of
Speaker 1: confirmation bias reads as follows quote. It is the tendency
Speaker 1: of individuals to favor information that confirms their beliefs or
Speaker 1: ideas and discount that which does not. This means that,
Speaker 1: when confronted with new information, we tend to do one
Speaker 1: of two things. If this information confirms what we already believe,
Speaker 1: our natural instinct is to accept it as true, accurate,
Speaker 1: and unbiased. We unreservedly accept it and are happy to
Speaker 1: have been shown it, even if it has some problems,
Speaker 1: we forgive and forget those incorporate this new information into
Speaker 1: our beliefs and schemas quickly. We are also more likely
Speaker 1: to recall this information leader to help buttress our belief
Speaker 1: during an argument. On the other hand, if this newly
Speaker 1: encountered information contradicts what we already believe, we have a
Speaker 1: very natural different response. We become highly critical and defensive,
Speaker 1: immediately nitpicking any possible flaw in the information, even though
Speaker 1: the same flaw would be ignored if the information confirmed
Speaker 1: our beliefs. It also fades quickly from our mind, so
Speaker 1: that in the future we cannot even recall being exposed
Speaker 1: to it.
Speaker 2: We have seen this bias at play over and over again,
Speaker 2: from art experts who want to think they found a
Speaker 2: previously unknown work by a particular artist, or in a
Speaker 2: buyer who doesn't want to believe they've been duped. Psychological
Speaker 2: bias is a powerful thing, so powerful that it can
Speaker 2: override actual knowledge that would contradict what someone wants to
Speaker 2: believe to us and maybe to you too. This seems
Speaker 2: to have been at play for J. D. Whitney, and
Speaker 2: he wasn't the only one.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a break for a word from
Speaker 1: our sponsor, and when we're back we will talk about
Speaker 1: how hard it was to convince even some experts that
Speaker 1: the skull was just not what they hoped.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's talk about just how long
Speaker 2: it took for experts to agree the skull was fake,
Speaker 2: and how the whole thing was actually a practical joke
Speaker 2: gone too far.
Speaker 1: Decades after first examining the skull, Holmes, feeling unsure about
Speaker 1: its age and providence, traveled to Calaveras to investigate further.
Speaker 1: He read all of Whitney's reports, which included a description
Speaker 1: of the skull. He examined the plant and animal thought
Speaker 1: bustle supposedly found in the sediment on the skull. He
Speaker 1: wrote of the scene, quote, to suppose that man could
Speaker 1: have remained unchanged physically, To suppose that he could have
Speaker 1: remained unchanged mentally, socially, industrially, and esthetically for a million years,
Speaker 1: roughly speaking, is to suppose a miracle. To suppose again,
Speaker 1: that the ancient people disappeared as a result of nature's mutations,
Speaker 1: leaving their bones and handiwork, and that another people springing
Speaker 1: up or appearing on the same spot in recent years,
Speaker 1: have duplicated each and every character, activity and art form
Speaker 1: is to suppose the impossible.
Speaker 2: Holmes also spoke with George Stickle, a resident of Angels
Speaker 2: Camp and Scribner associate. Stickkell stated that the skull had
Speaker 2: come from an indigenous burial place in Salt Spring Valley,
Speaker 2: which was located west of Angels Camp. He claimed it
Speaker 2: was removed by doctor William Kelly, who gave it to Scribner,
Speaker 2: who originally thought it would make a fun gag gift
Speaker 2: to doctor Jones.
Speaker 1: Holmes was now certain that the skull had been placed
Speaker 1: in the mine, but he just couldn't verify it. Scribner
Speaker 1: and Jones had both died in eighteen ninety eight. It's
Speaker 1: actually pretty difficult to find a primary account of what occurred.
Speaker 1: But Holmes heard the same tale again and again from
Speaker 1: locals who had been there at the time, and that
Speaker 1: story that they told was this. It was Scribner who
Speaker 1: was the architect of the prank, along with a few
Speaker 1: accomplices who were all friends of doctor Jones. Mattinson was
Speaker 1: the sucker that they counted on to find the skull
Speaker 1: that they'd planted, which he did, and they bet that
Speaker 1: he would kick off a chain of events that would
Speaker 1: get it into Jones's hands. He was the real target
Speaker 1: of the prank, and Mattinson also did that.
Speaker 2: When the skull arrived, Jones initially thought that it was
Speaker 2: a practical joke, and really he should have trusted his
Speaker 2: gut here. According to innkeeper jail spare Mary, Jones first
Speaker 2: threw the skull into this street, yelling about how quote
Speaker 2: the skull had been brought to him as a relic
Speaker 2: of great antiquity, but he had just discovered cobwebs in
Speaker 2: it and concluded that he had been made the subject
Speaker 2: of one of Scribner's practical jokes. But then he had
Speaker 2: second thoughts about it and presumably retrieved it from the street.
Speaker 2: Never intended as anything more than a prank, the skull
Speaker 2: ended up being discussed as a genuine Clyti scene fossil,
Speaker 2: first by Jones, then by Whitney.
Speaker 1: At the turn of the century. And yet despite all
Speaker 1: these revelations that indicated the tomfoolery of the whole setup,
Speaker 1: the skull continued to have defenders. The more experts learned
Speaker 1: about it, though the more out of place it seemed.
Speaker 1: It took several decades of debate before it was concluded
Speaker 1: to be faked. Radiocarbon analysis known also as carbon dating,
Speaker 1: was conducted on the skull in nineteen ninety two, so
Speaker 1: quite a while after the whole thing started, and results
Speaker 1: indicated it likely came from the Late Holocene Age. The
Speaker 1: Holocene is the current geological epic in Earth's history. This
Speaker 1: skull ultimately is estimated to be about one thousand years old,
Speaker 1: and that aligns with Holmes's conclusion made years earlier.
Speaker 2: Nearly a century later, Ralph Dexter of the Department of
Speaker 2: Biological Sciences at Kent State University concluded of the skull
Speaker 2: and its controversy, quote, the desire on the part of
Speaker 2: miners to play a practical joke, the anxiety of archaeologists
Speaker 2: to prove the existence of early humankind in North America,
Speaker 2: and the firm convictions and good faith of those involved
Speaker 2: in an honest mistake led to this long drawn out controversy,
Speaker 2: unique in the annals of American archaeology. The skull disappeared
Speaker 2: from discussion.
Speaker 1: Are you ready for a little something to drink while
Speaker 1: we contemplate this whole skull story?
Speaker 2: I am. Can you believe how many decades. That's it. Yes,
Speaker 2: actually I can't you.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of the inspiration for today's drink, which
Speaker 1: is called confirmation bias, because it really is a thing
Speaker 1: where people will just dig in and they want something
Speaker 1: to be true so bad. So I at least wanted
Speaker 1: something to be super delicious and have not the flavor
Speaker 1: of the drink that it's a look alike for, but
Speaker 1: have a little bit of the same quality. And I'll
Speaker 1: explain as we go. This one is a small drink.
Speaker 1: One of those drinks is not diluted with anything, so
Speaker 1: it is very spirit forward. But it is going to
Speaker 1: start with a half ounce of unsweetened cranberry juice, a
Speaker 1: splash of agave syrup, a quarter ounce of vanilla liqueur,
Speaker 1: so not a whole lot, and then an ounce and
Speaker 1: a half of dark rum. And you're going to put
Speaker 1: these into a mixing glass with ice and then stir
Speaker 1: it to combine it. If you are a drink person,
Speaker 1: you may already know what we're making a copy of,
Speaker 1: because that's how the original is also made. You're going
Speaker 1: to strain that into a cocktail glass that's pre chilled.
Speaker 1: I love a Nick and Nora glass for this. One,
Speaker 1: which are those smaller volume they're really cute and perfect.
Speaker 1: And then you're gonna garnish it with a cranberry that
Speaker 1: has been soaked in a gave or brown sugar syrup
Speaker 1: for just a little while. You just need a coating
Speaker 1: on it because it looks like a Manhattan.
Speaker 2: It does, yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Know, And a Manhattan is not dark, round, sweet, vermooth
Speaker 1: bourbon and usually samangaster a bitters, so it's also very
Speaker 1: spirit forward. It also is stirred in a mixing glass
Speaker 1: instead of in a shaker or anything. I also wanted.
Speaker 1: I was just fascinated by this idea of the dirt
Speaker 1: and so I wanted a brown drink. I knew this
Speaker 1: one is definitely on the reddish side of brown, so
Speaker 1: that's what led me down this path. But the thing is,
Speaker 1: when you drink it, it is like a Manhattan. It
Speaker 1: doesn't taste like one at all, but it has a
Speaker 1: similar effect psychologically, which is that you're like, Wow, this
Speaker 1: is a strong drink, but it's also pretty tasty because
Speaker 1: sometimes when you say wow, this is a strong drink,
Speaker 1: you're not tasting anything but spirit writing yes, whereas a Manhattan,
Speaker 1: if it's made well, you taste the spirit, but you
Speaker 1: you know that that sweet vermouth and that little bit
Speaker 1: of like a luxado cherry usually gives it that little
Speaker 1: bit of sweetness that smooths out the rough edges, and
Speaker 1: so you taste the flavors and you're not just like, wow,
Speaker 1: that's alcohol. And I will say my one taste tester agreed,
Speaker 1: not a big drinker, not a fan of drinks that
Speaker 1: taste like alcohol. And he said, this is interesting because
Speaker 1: I can taste that it's very spirit forward. But I
Speaker 1: don't mind this at all when I was there.
Speaker 2: Interesting from him.
Speaker 1: Yes, if you want to make the mocktail of this,
Speaker 1: it's really easy. You're gonna make everything the same, except
Speaker 1: instead of vanilla li cure, you'll use a vanilla syrup,
Speaker 1: and instead of dark rum, you're gonna make your favorite
Speaker 1: dark like a black tea that has whatever spices you love,
Speaker 1: whether it is a tea that comes spiced, or you
Speaker 1: like to make your own black tea and then spice
Speaker 1: it up with a little nutmeg and cardamom, or I'd
Speaker 1: like to put a little pumpkin pie spice in tea.
Speaker 1: It gets super yummy, I know. But we're in the
Speaker 1: holiday scenes. It's appropriate. Yes, it's appropriate for me year round,
Speaker 1: but you can also you know, if you're seasonal that way,
Speaker 1: this should be great and that actually makes a really
Speaker 1: yummy drink. I actually made one version with a vanilla
Speaker 1: tea that I had on hand, and that was quite tasty,
Speaker 1: but definitely a little on the more deserty roundy side.
Speaker 1: And then I made one with a black tea that
Speaker 1: I had added an assortment of things too, also very good,
Speaker 1: but just a slightly different flavor profile. So experiment, find
Speaker 1: what you like. Because remember, there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: cocktail jail. You just want to make the cocktails and mocktails.
Speaker 1: It taste most delicious to you, so tweak any recipe,
Speaker 1: however you need to make it super yummy. In this case,
Speaker 1: if it's two spirit forward, add a little more agave syrup,
Speaker 1: add a little more cranberry juice. Although if you're doing
Speaker 1: the unsweetened it has its own bite, so you got
Speaker 1: to be a little careful with that. But you can
Speaker 1: tweak and see what you like. I'm a big fan
Speaker 1: of the taste tests. Go what does this need? This
Speaker 1: is how you develop your skills as your home bartender,
Speaker 1: where you know exactly how to make exactly what you
Speaker 1: love and what's better than that. We are so grateful
Speaker 1: that you hang out with us to experiment with these
Speaker 1: cocktails and hear stories of assorted strange things, including a
Speaker 1: lot of confirmation bias. We will be right back here
Speaker 1: next week with a little more of that and another cocktail.
Speaker 1: Criminalia is a production of Shondaland Audio in partnership with iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from Shondaland Audio, please visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.