#State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart
Text
Peruvian fossil challenges blue whales for size
3 August 2023
By Jonathan Amos, Science correspondent
Scientists have identified a new candidate for the heaviest ever animal on Planet Earth.
It's an ancient, long-extinct whale that would have tipped the scales at close to 200 tonnes.
Only some of the very biggest blue whale specimens might have rivalled its heft, researchers say.
The creature's fossilised bones were dug up in the desert in southern Peru, so it has been given the name Perucetus colossus.
Dating of the sediments around the remains suggests it lived about 39 million years ago.
"The fossils were actually discovered 13 years ago, but their size and shape meant it took three years just to get them to Lima (the capital of Peru), where they've been studied ever since," said Dr Eli Amson, a co-worker on the discovery team led by palaeontologist Dr Mario Urbina.
Eighteen bones were recovered from the marine mammal - an early type of whale known as a basilosaurid.
These included 13 vertebrae, four ribs and part of a hip bone.
But even given these fragmentary elements and their age, scientists were still able to decipher a huge amount about the creature.
In particular, it's evident the bones were extremely dense, caused by a process known as osteosclerosis in which inner cavities are filled.
The bones were also oversized, in the sense they had extra growth on their exterior surfaces - something called pachyostosis.
These weren't features of disease, the team said, but rather adaptations that would have given this large whale the necessary buoyancy control when foraging in shallow waters.
Similar bone features are seen for example in modern-day manatees, or sea cows, which also inhabit coastal zones in certain parts of the world.
"Each vertebra weighs over 100kg, which is just completely mind-blowing," said co-worker Dr Rebecca Bennion from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels.
"It took several men to shift them out into the middle of the floor in the museum for me to do some 3D scanning.
The team that drilled into the centre of some of these vertebrae to work out the bone density - the bone was so dense, it broke the drill on the first attempt."
When confronted with a skeleton of a long-extinct species, scientists use models to try to reconstruct the body shape and mass of the animal.
They do this based on what they know about the biology of comparable living creatures.
It is predicted Perucetus would have been about 17-20m in length, which is not exceptional.
But its bone mass alone would have been somewhere between 5.3 and 7.6 tonnes.
And by the time you add in organs, muscle and blubber, it could have weighed - depending on the assumptions - anywhere between 85 tonnes and 320 tonnes.
Dr Amson, a curator at Germany's State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, uses a median number of 180.
The largest blue whales recorded during the era of commercial exploitation were at this scale.
"What we like to say is that Perucetus is in the same ball park as the blue whale," he told BBC News.
"But there's no reason to think that our individual was particularly big or small; it was likely just part of the general population.
So it's worth keeping in mind that when we use the median estimate, it's already at the very upper ranges of what blue whales can measure."
One of the comparators used by the research team in its investigations is a blue whale that will be very familiar to anyone who has visited the Natural History Museum in London.
Nicknamed Hope, this animal's skeleton took pride of place at the institution when it was hung from the ceiling in the main hall in 2017.
But before being installed, the skeleton was scanned and described in great detail and is now an important data resource for scientists across the world.
In life, Perucetus' skeletal mass would have been two to three times that of Hope, even though the London mammal was a good five metres longer.
Richard Sabin, the curator of marine mammals at the NHM, is thrilled by the new find and would love to bring some aspect of it to London for display.
"We took the time to digitise Hope - to measure not just the weight of the bones but their shape as well, and our whale has now become something of a touchstone for people," he said.
"We don't get hung up on labels - like 'which was the largest specimen?' - because we know science at some point will always come along with new data.
What's amazing about Perucetus is that it demonstrated so much mass some 30 million-plus years ago when we thought gigantism occurred in whales only 4.5 million years ago."
Perucetus colossus is reported in the journal Nature.
#Perucetus colossus#Perucetus#Peru#fossils#palaeontology#whale#basilosaurid#osteosclerosis#pachyostosis#Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences#long-extinct species#State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart#blue whale#Natural History Museum#Hope#Peruvian fossil
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
Massive dino from Brazil ate 'like a pelican,' controversial new study finds. Why is it causing an uproar?
The study reveals new information about the carnivorous dinosaur Irritator challengeri, but the research has been criticized because the fossils may have been illegally removed from Brazil.
A large predatory dinosaur related to Spinosaurus may have scooped up prey "like a pelican" by extending its lower jaw, European researchers propose in a new study. But the findings have upset some paleontologists who contest that the fossils were illegally taken from Brazil and should be returned to their country of origin.
The dinosaur at the center of the controversy is Irritator challengeri, a member of the family Spinosauridae — a group of bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs with long, crocodilian-like snouts. The species, which grew to a max length of around 21 feet (6.5 meters), was first described in 1996 from 115 million-year-old fossils uncovered in the Araripe Basin of northeastern Brazil and later shipped to Germany, where they now reside in the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History in the state of Baden-Württemberg.
In the new study, which was published in the journal Palaeontologia Electronica, researchers digitally reconstructed the skull from the I. challengeri specimen housed in Stuttgart and discovered that the species' lower jaw could spread out to the sides, widening the animal's pharynx, the area behind the nose and mouth. This is similar to how a pelican widens its lower beak to scoop up small fish, suggesting that I. challengeri likely fed in the same way, the researchers wrote in a statement.
The new analysis also revealed that, due to its eye placement, I. challengeri would have naturally inclined its snout at a 45-degree angle and been capable of rapid-yet-weak bites. When combined, these features suggest that the snout would have been well suited to quickly scooping prey out of shallow water, the researchers wrote.
I. challengeri's journey from Brazil to Germany is a contentious one. The fossils were unearthed by nonscientific commercial diggers and were sold to the Stuttgart Museum before 1990, when Brazil began restricting scientific exports to other countries. As a result, the study's researchers believed that the fossils legally belonged to the Baden-Württemberg state.
However, an older Brazilian law dating to 1942 states that Brazilian fossils are federal property and cannot be sold, meaning that the fossil was technically stolen by the commercial diggers who exported it, Juan Carlos Cisneros, a paleontologist at the Federal University of Piauí in Brazil who was not involved in the new study, told Live Science in an email. "And buying something stolen does not make you its owner," he said.
Continue reading.
#brazil#germany#politics#science#paleontology#dinosaurs#brazilian politics#german politics#mod nise da silveira#image description in alt
62 notes
·
View notes
Text
They look like Christmas tree decoration, these capsules of shark eggs!
Yes, certain shark species lay eggs (while others bear live young). The imprint of the capsule protecting the egg has fossilized. The basic shape of the shark is already there! The tendril on top of the egg capsule helps to hold onto structures on the seafloor.
These tiny (<4cm) fossil imprints are 320 (!) million years old. They were found in (now closed) coal mines in Belgium. By studying them our researchers identified more than 10 different species.
The egg capsule fossils in our collections witness of a high diversity in sharks spawning and nursing in ancient Belgian waters.
[Pic 1: Ronald Böttcher, State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart; Drawing: Frederik Spindler; extant shark eggs and capsules: Yohanes Wahyu Nurcahyo; B&W pictures of fossils: B. Mottequin et al. in 'The Science of Nature']
#nature is the greatest show#fossil friday#naturalsciencesbrussels#royal belgian institute of natural sciences#fossils#sharks#eggs
99 notes
·
View notes
Text
Extrapolating from some massive bones found in the Peruvian desert, an international team of researchers estimated that the animal had an average body mass of 180 tonnes.
That would not take the heavyweight title by itself. The biggest blue whale ever recorded weighed 190 tonnes, according to Guinness World Records.
But the researchers estimated the ancient whale's weight range was between 85 and 340 tonnes, meaning it could have been significantly larger.
The researchers were careful not to declare the ancient whale had broken the record.
But there was also "no reason to think that this specimen was the largest of its kind," study co-author Eli Amson told AFP."I think there's a good chance that some of the individuals broke the record -- but the take-home message is that we are in the ballpark of the blue whale," said Amson, a paleontologist at the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart in Germany.
. . .
On Wednesday, they revealed it is a new species of basilosaurid, an extinct family of cetaceans.
Today's cetaceans include dolphins, whales and porpoises, but their early ancestors lived on land, some resembling small deer.Over time they moved into the water, and basilosaurids are believed to be the first cetaceans to have a fully aquatic lifestyle.
But the new discovery indicates that cetaceans reached their peak body mass roughly 30 million years earlier than previously thought, the study said.
. . .
The researchers were confident that the animal lived in shallow waters in coastal environments, due to the strange heaviness of its bones.
Its whole skeleton was estimated to weigh between five to seven tonnes -- more than twice as heavy as the skeleton of a blue whale."This is -- for sure -- the heaviest skeleton of any mammal known to date," as well as any aquatic animal, Amson said.
Perucetus colossus needed heavy bones to compensate for the huge amount of buoyant blubber -- and air in its lungs -- which could otherwise send it bobbing to the surface.
But just the right balance of bone density and blubber allowed the giant animal to stay in the middle of around 10 metres (33 feet) of water "without moving a muscle," Amson explained.
Felix Marx, a marine mammal expert at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa not involved in the study, told AFP that Perucetus colossus "is very different from anything else we've ever found".
He cautioned that extinct sea cows had heavier bones than would be expected for their total body weight, potentially suggesting Perucetus colossus could be on the lower end of its estimated weight range.
-------
What's most interesting about this to me is just how quickly whales became MASSIVE. It still has limbs, but it may have been the heaviest being to ever live on the planet Earth.
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
My friend is from Stuttgart and he told me the city is planning on killing the Egyptian geese:( is that true?
They've been talking about it for years, and they allow hunters to kill them but not in the city obviously. I don't know if they'll finally do something for real.
In the end, we just have a bunch of people complaining they feel bothered by their shit and presence and that's why they should be exterminated. So petty. They keep saying they threaten the native birds, but they haven't been able to prove it. Furthermore, the biologists at the Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart have published papers stating there's no evidence for that.
If they did exterminate them (unlikely), next they'll complain about the greylag geese, because they shit exactly the same.
Nilgans is hated by many indeed, but here on this blog we only have love and respect for them.
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Fully Funded PhD Position in Entomology (Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Mating System in Mayflies) in Stuttgart, Germany
Fully Funded PhD Position in Entomology (Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Mating System in Mayflies) in Stuttgart, Germany
PhD Fully Funded Position in Entomology (Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Mating System in Mayflies) in Stuttgart, Germany The State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart (SMNS) is one of the largest natural history museums in Germany, and conducts collection-based research in the areas of systematics, taxonomy, biodiversity and evolution. The SMNS also cooperates closely with the University of Hohenheim in research and academic teaching. As an integrated research museum, the SMNS contributes to a deeper understanding of complex biological relationships and engages actively in science communication. The SMNS strives to be admitted into the Leibniz Association. The project: Mayflies (Insecta:
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Fwd: Graduate position: MNH_Stuttgart.OlfactoryConvergentEvolution
Begin forwarded message:
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Graduate position: MNH_Stuttgart.OlfactoryConvergentEvolution
> Date: 23 April 2023 at 05:40:14 BST
> To: [email protected]
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> The State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart (Germany) offers a
> funded PhD (3 years) to investigate the potential convergent evolution
> of the olfactory system of subterranean reptiles and amphibians.
> The application deadline is May 18th, 2023. More information in
> the link below: *https://ift.tt/2nGHEaL
>
> Feel free to forward this message to people who might be interested.
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> Quentin Martinez
>
> *Quentin Martinez*
>
> Post-doc researcher and Wildlife Photographer
> State Museum of Natural History, Stuttgart - Germany
> New website in progress: www.quentinmartinez.fr
>
> Quentin Martinez
0 notes
Text
Scientists find fossilized ancestor of all scaled reptiles, and it's absolutely tiny
https://sciencespies.com/nature/scientists-find-fossilized-ancestor-of-all-scaled-reptiles-and-its-absolutely-tiny/
Scientists find fossilized ancestor of all scaled reptiles, and it's absolutely tiny
Scientists have bridged a missing link in the reptile tree of life.
That link is the tiny skull of a lizard-like creature “profusely ornamented” with features that suggest it gave rise to all living lizards, snakes, and the sole survivor of another reptile group found only in New Zealand.
Named Taytalura alcoberi, the fossilized skull is pegged as the most primitive scaled reptile discovered to date, the first fossil of its kind unearthed in South America, and the most complete early lepidosaur fossil ever found, according to the international team behind the discovery.
Lepidosaurs are scaled reptiles such as lizards, snakes, and New Zealand’s tuatara, which together represent the most diverse group of land-living vertebrates alive today. Yet little is known about their early origins compared to the other arms of reptilian evolution which produced crocodiles, birds, and turtles.
“The almost perfectly preserved Taytalura skull shows us details of how a very successful group of animals, including more than 10,000 species of snakes, lizards, and tuatara, originated,” says paleontologist and museum curator Ricardo N. Martínez, at the National University of San Juan in Argentina.
The discovery of the inch-long skull also has scientists reconsidering what they knew about reptiles in the Mesozoic Era, which is often known for its enormous reptiles and towering trees, and rethinking where the search for ancient reptilian fossils should go next.
“There was a universe of fauna sneaking among bigger, clawed or hoofy paws,” says paleontologist and co-author Sebastián Apesteguía at the Universidad Maimónides in Buenos Aires.
An illustration of Taytalura. (Jorge Blanco, 2021).
“Taytalura teaches us that we were missing important information by looking not only for bigger animals, but for also thinking that the origin of lizards occurred only in the Northern Hemisphere as evidence seemed to support until now.”
The fossil, found in Ischigualasto Provincial Park in northwest Argentina, is about 11 million years younger than the oldest known lepidosaurs from Europe, but one of the best-preserved specimens of its kind, which means the team can have more confidence in their analyses.
“It looked more primitive than a true lizard and that is something quite special,” says Tiago R. Simões of his first impressions of the skull, which measures 32 mm (1.25 inches) long.
The fossilized Taytalura skull. (Ricardo Martinezl).
It’s a lucky find, especially considering the origins of lepidosaurs have been a gaping hole in evolutionary knowledge because of an “extremely patchy early fossil record comprising only a handful of fragmentary fossils”, mostly found in Europe and often poorly preserved, the research team explains.
“All other known fossils are too incomplete, which makes it difficult to classify them for sure, but the complete and articulated nature of Taytalura makes its relationships much more certain,” says team member and paleontologist Gabriela Sobral, from the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart in Germany.
In a cross-continental effort, the research team examined the skull’s structure using a high-resolution micro-CT scanner and analyzed the images. The Taytalura skull had unique teeth and an unusual combination of features the team was not expecting to find in such an early specimen, preserved in three dimensions of astonishing detail.
“The extraordinary quality of preservation of the fossils at this site [in Argentina] allowed something as fragile and tiny as this specimen to be preserved for 231 million years,” says Martínez.
Tayta means father in Quechua, the language of the Quechua people of the South American Andes, and lura is the Kakán word for lizard, spoken by Diaguita people of northwestern Argentina, where the skull was found.
Life restoration of the Taytalura skull. (Jorge Blanco, Gabriela Sobral and Ricardo Martínez).
Some of its features resembled modern tuatara more than living lizards and snakes, which suggests the latter actually represents a major deviation in evolution – not so much the tuatara living on windswept New Zealand islands.
Martínez and the team also deployed statistical tools to test the likelihood of possible evolutionary relationships for Taytalura, and to estimate the timing of various evolutionary departures that branched into other forms of life.
These analyses, based on a comprehensive dataset of reptilian fossils, helped Taytalura find its place in the evolutionary tree, nestled in between true lizards and tuatara, and all other reptiles.
What’s more, the discovery of Taytalura in Argentina suggests that early lepidosaurs were probably able to migrate much further than previously thought – across thousands of miles on the ancient supercontinent Pangea that later split into the continents we see today: Europe to the north and South America in the opposite hemisphere.
Quite the journey for this teeny reptile.
The research was published in Nature.
#Nature
1 note
·
View note
Text
Rutiodon
By Ripley Cook
Etymology: Wrinkle Tooth
First Described By: Emmons, 1856
Classification: Biota, Archaea, Proteoarchaeota, Asgardarchaeota, Eukaryota, Neokaryota, Scotokaryota Opimoda, Podiata, Amorphea, Obazoa, Opisthokonta, Holozoa, Filozoa, Choanozoa, Animalia, Eumetazoa, Parahoxozoa, Bilateria, Nephrozoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Olfactores, Vertebrata, Craniata, Gnathostomata, Eugnathostomata, Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Rhipidistia, Tetrapodomorpha, Eotetrapodiformes, Elpistostegalia, Stegocephalia, Tetrapoda, Reptiliomorpha, Amniota, Sauropsida, Eureptilia, Romeriida, Diapsida, Neodiapsida, Sauria, Archosauromorpha, Crocopoda, Archosauriformes, Eucrocopoda, Crurotarsi, Archosauria?, Pseudosuchia?, Phytosauria, Parasuchidae, Mystriosuchinae
Referred Species: R. carolinensis, R. manhattanensis
Status: Extinct
Time and Place: Sometime between 227 and 208.5 million years ago, in the Norian of the Late Triassic
Rutiodon is primarily known from the Eastern United States; there are reports from Canada, as well, but these are more dubious. All reports from the Chinle Formation that were once assigned to Rutiodon have since been given their own names. It is known from the Blue Bell Quarry and the New Oxford Formation of Pennsylvania, the Cumnock and Pekin Formations of North Carolina, and the Ewing Creek Member of the Lockatong Formation and the Passaic Formation of New Jersey.
Physical Description: Rutiodon was a Phytosaur, so naturally it looked ridiculously similar to modern crocodilians - and wasn’t one in the slightest. In fact, Phytosaurs and Crocodilians have a major difference - they had their nostrils far back on the head, close to the eyes, rather than on the tip of the snout. Rutiodon itself was very long, between 3 and 8 meters in body length, making it one of the largest animals in its environment. It had a very long, narrow jaw, with large teeth inside that grew much bigger at the front of the jaw. Weirdly enough, it was covered in armored plates like modern crocodilians on its back, sides, and tail, though this is a clear-cut case of convergent evolution - Crocodilians evolved from completely different Triassic reptiles. Rutiodon had a long tail, a squat body, and legs splayed out to the sides, just enhancing how much it resembled living crocodilians.
Diet: Rutiodon would have fed on small animals and fish in its environment, using the hook in its jaw as well as the large teeth to grab onto struggling prey and hold it steady.
Behavior: Despite its uncanny resemblance to living crocodilians, it is difficult to determine whether or not Phytosaurs such as Rutiodon would have actually behaved like them. While being an ambush predator in the water it called home makes a certain amount of sense, that sense is primarily based on its resemblance to living analogues. That said, it’s also possible that the extreme length of its mouth would have aided Rutiodon in reaching and grabbing food that would be out of reach for a more snort-shouted animal (such as the large predatory amphibians that it shared a home with). It probably would have taken care of its young, though if it was more social than that it would have been more out of convenience than anything else. That said, Rutiodon seems to have been quite common, so groups of “I guess we’re all in this place together” may have been very common and a large annoyance to animals in the area trying to move through unscathed.
Ecosystem: In general, Rutiodon lived in lake environments, usually near forests with decent amounts of water present beyond the lake. Flooding and swamp-like conditions were probably favored by this genus, based on its fossil neighbors. It was found in lakes, river deltas, and floodplains that would frequently turn into extremely overflowed swamps. In the Cumnock Environment of North Carolina, it lived alongside the large amphibian Dictyocephalus, as well as therapsids like Dromatherium and Microconodon and a variety of fish and unnamed reptiles. In the New Oxford Formation of Pennsylvania, it lived alongside another large amphibian - Koskinodon - as well as the fish Synorichthys, and potentially other Phytosaurs like Suchoprion and Palaeoctonus. Finally, in Lockatong, it lived with the Tanystropheid Tanytrachelos, the Kuehneosaurid Icarosaurus, the Protorosaur Hypuronector, the Rhynchosaurid Rhynchosauroides, unnamed dinosaurs, another Metoposaurid, and a variety of fish like Diplurus, Synorichthys, Turseodus, and Osteopleurus. All that fish would have made an excellent source of food for Rutiodon, along with those small Therapsids!
Other: Phytosaurs like Rutiodon are a fun group of creatures that actually come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, and aren’t all so similar to Crocodilians - they had weaker ankyls, no bony structure in the mouth to aid in breathing while underwater (though they may have had a fleshy one), and they actually had even more armor than crocodilians. That said, there is a chance Rutiodon and relatives are… stem-Crocodilians. What this means is, that living Crocodilians are their closest modern relatives. This is a subject of hot debate - they’re either the earliest branching members of the Crocodile-Relative group, or they’re closely but equally related to all modern archosaurs (so, they’d be equally Crocodile - and equally bird!) More research on these animals are sure to reveal further insights into their place in the evolution of the ruling reptiles.
~ By Meig Dickson
Sources Under the Cut
Baird, D. 1986. Some Upper Triassic reptiles, footprints and an amphibian from New Jersey. The Mosasaur 3:125-153.
Ballew, K.L. (1989). A phylogenetic analysis of Phytosauria from the Late Triassic of the Western United States. Dawn of the age of dinosaurs in the American Southwest: pp. 309–339.
Carroll, R.L. (1988). Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, WH Freeman & Co.
Colbert, E. H. 1966. Ancient reptile of Blue Bell. Frontiers 31(2):42-44.
Cope, E. D. 1878. On some Saurians found in the Triassic of Pennsylvania, by C. M. Wheatley. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 17(100):231-232.
Doyle, K. D., and H.-D. Sues. 1995. Phytosaurs (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper Triassic New Oxford Formation of York County, Pennsylvania. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15(3):545-553.
Emmons, E. 1856. Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina xx-351.
Emmons, E. 1857. American Geology, Containing a Statement of the Principles of the Science with Full Illustrations of the Characteristic American Fossils. With an Atlas and a Geological Map of the United States Part IV:x-152.
Gaines, Richard M. (2001). Coelophysis. ABDO Publishing Company. p. 21.
Gregory, J.T. (1962). Genera of phytosaurs. American Journal of Science, 260: 652-690.
Hungerbühler, A. (2002). The Late Triassic phytosaur Mystriosuchus Westphali, with a revision of the genus. Palaeontology 45 (2): 377-418
Jaeger, G.F. 1828. Über die fossilen Reptilien, welche in Würtemberg aufgefunden worden sind. Metzler, Stuttgart.
Kammerer, C. F., R. J. Butler, S. Bandyopadhyay and M. R. Stocker. 2016. Relationships of the Indian phytosaur Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885. Papers in Palaeontology 2:1-23.
Kimmig, J. & Arp, G. (2010) Phytosaur remains from the Norian Arnstadt Formation (Leine Valley, Germany), with reference to European phytosaur habitats. Palaeodiversity 3: 215-224
Long, R.A. & Murry, P.A. (1995). Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern United States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, 4: 1-254.
Lucas, S.G. (1998). Global Triassic tetrapod biostratigraphy and biochronology. Paleogeog. Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol. 143: 347-384.
Lyman, B. S. 1894. Some New Red horizons. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 33:192-215.
Maisch, M.W.; Kapitzke, M. (2010). "A presumably marine phytosaur (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the pre-planorbis beds (Hettangian) of England". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 257 (3): 373–379.
Mateus, O., Clemmensen L., Klein N., Wings O., Frobøse N., Milàn J., Adolfssen J., & Estrup E. (2014). The Late Triassic of Jameson Land revisited: new vertebrate findings and the first phytosaur from Greenland. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts, 2014, 182.
Nesbitt, S.J. (2011). "The early evolution of archosaurs: relationships and the origin of major clades" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352: 1–292.
Olsen, P. E., A. R. McCune, and K. S. Thomson. 1982. Correlation of the early Mesozoic Newark Supergroup by vertebrates, principally fishes. American Journal of Science 282:1-44.
Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. p. 95.
Schaeffer, B. 1941. Revision of Coelacanthus newarki and notes on the evolution of the girdles and basal plates of the median fins in the Coelacanthini. American Museum Novitates 1110:1-17.
Sengupta, S.; Ezcurra, M.D.; Bandyopadhyay, S. (2017). "A new horned and long-necked herbivorous stem-archosaur from the Middle Triassic of India". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 8366.
Senter, P. (2005). "Phylogenetic taxonomy and the names of the major archosaurian (Reptilia) clades". PaleoBios. 25 (2): 1–7.
Stocker, Michelle R. (2010). "A new taxon of phytosaur (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) from the Late Triassic (Norian) Sonsela Member (Chinle Formation) in Arizona, and a critical reevaluation of Leptosuchus, Case, 1922". Palaeontology. 53 (5): 997–1022.
Stocker, M. R. (2012). "A new phytosaur (Archosauriformes, Phytosauria) from the Lot's Wife beds (Sonsela Member) within the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32 (3): 573–586.
Stocker, M. R.; Li-Jun Zhao; Sterling J. Nesbitt; Xiao-Chun Wu; Chun Li (2017). "A Short-Snouted, Middle Triassic Phytosaur and its Implications for the Morphological Evolution and Biogeography of Phytosauria". Scientific Reports. 7: Article number 46028. doi:10.1038/srep46028.
#rutiodon#rutiodon carolinensis#rutiodon manhattanensis#phytosaur#triassic#triassic madness#triassic march madness#reptile#prehistoric life#paleontology
204 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hitler’s car, not Goring’s car...
"Hitler's Car" and the Canadian War Museum: Problems of Documentation and Interpretation
Cameron Pulsifer - Canadian War Museum in Ottawa
1 One of the best known and also most problematic artifacts on display at the Canadian War Museum (CWM) is the black Grosser Mercedes automobile that was once used by Adolf Hitler. When the car came to the CWM in 1970 it was believed to have belonged to Hitler's Deputy Führer and Luftwaffe commander Hermann Goering. But then a critical piece of research, undertaken by CWM librarian Ludwig Kosche, and published in the magazine After the Battle in 1982, revealed conclusively that the car had belonged to Hitler.1 Kosche's study is thorough, meticulous, and indisputable, and it transformed the significance of the artifact. An object of moderate interest when associated with the second-ranking Nazi leader, it became one of intense fascination when associated with the arch-villain behind the whole Nazi enterprise, the Führer himself.
The story of the car has been well told by Kosche. The following will, in the main, be concerned with its story as an artifact at the Canadian War Museum. It will focus on the manner of its acquisition, the nature of its "restoration," the problems of its documentation, and the difficulties inherent in its exhibition. As such, it should serve as an interesting case study of artifact acquisition and research in what must be seen now as a markedly aggressive era in the history of museum collecting, and as an illumination of the approach the CWM has taken over the years to the documentation and the presentation of this particularly contentious artifact.
3 The CWM's vehicle is a Grosser Mercedes 770 W 150 of which Daimler Benz of Stuttgart produced three versions between 1938 and 1943. The first was unarmoured; the second was armoured; and the third was a larger more powerful version termed a Staatskarosse. The CWM's car is one of the second, armoured, versions. Weighing 4100 kilograms, it was powered by a 230-horsepower engine, and could produce top speeds of between 145 and 150 km/h. The doors were armoured, the windows were 2.5-centimetre-thick bullet-proof glass, and a 0.6-centimetre-thick armour plate could be raised behind the rear passenger seat. There are separate front seats for a driver and a passenger, and a bench style rear passenger seat. In addition, immediately behind the front seats are three folding jump seats to hold additional passengers if required. There is one compartment in the front dashboard and two in the rear seat for holding pistols.
4 The car has a number of features that, according to Kosche, have "so far not been found in photographs of other Grosser Mercedes 770 W150." These are: "an ornamental hole in the radiator; four vents directly beneath the wind screen; two door hinges on either side ... short, curved side rear windows; and twenty cooling-slits on both sides of the central hinge on top of the bonnet."2 These distinctive features, together with the car's one surviving registration plate at the rear, were eventually to enable Kosche to confirm that the car had been one of Hitler's, not Goering's.
5 The CWM acquired the vehicle in May 1970 from Quebec City businessman and entrepreneur Claude Pratte for a gift tax receipt. He had purchased it some years previously from H. J. O'Connell, a Montreal collector, who in turn had acquired it in an auction at the American Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in November 1956 for $2,725 (American). O'Connell had hired R. J. Rumble of Rumble Motors in Toronto to do the bidding, and after its purchase the car was shipped to the firm's Toronto premises, where a further $5,000 (Canadian) was spent on an extensive "restoration."3
6 The car was well known at the time as Goering's staff car. It had been associated with the Luftwaffe commander virtually since its capture by the Americans in May 1945. Sergeant T. Joe Azara of the 20th Armored Division had found the car sitting on a flatbed in a railway siding in the village of Laufen just north of Salzburg, Austria. After a short fire fight with some German snipers, Azara secured the car, removed it from the flatbed, and soon had it running. (He soon, however, had to replace the original engine with another of the same power removed from a Mercedes found at Hitler's retreat at Berchtesgaden, located just to the north of Laufen across the Austrian-Bavarian frontier.)4
From a reading of the 20th Armored Division's newspaper, The Dispatch, Kosche attributes the association of the car with Goering to a statement made at the time by a Dutch civilian worker in a garage near where the car was captured. He claimed that the car was being shipped from Berchtesgaden, "because it was out of gas, and even Goering could get no more."5 Kosche concludes that this rather ambiguous statement was the origin of the car's becoming identified with the portly Reichsmarschall. Whatever the case, after the car was shipped to the United States in August 1945, it was used as the centre piece of a number of war bond drives identified as "Goering's Personal Car."6
8 In October 1956, it was put up for auction, after having spent the previous nine years in storage with the Property Disposal Office of the American military. Again it was advertised as one of Goering's cars, and was apparently acquired by H. J. O'Connell with this understanding. Another car sold at the same sale was one of two Mercedes that had been captured by the 101st Airborne. It was a 1943 Mercedes that its captors had termed the "Blue Goose," which had indeed belonged to Goering. R. J. Rumble evidently assumed that his car was the other Mercedes known to have been captured by the 101st. Since the other car taken by the 101st was known to be a Staatskarosse, Rumble based his "restoration" of his own car upon a photograph that he had available of a Staatskarosse. The result was the centre light mounted on the curved bar above the front fender, which the CWM's car never had originally.7
The car purchased by Rumble had suffered some gunshot damage. Bullets had pierced the armour plate at the back, and the dashboard had also been hit. In addition there were three bullet holes in the front wind screen with some cracking, and the right passenger windscreen was badly splintered. It had long been believed that this damage had been inflicted after the war by trigger happy G.I.s at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, anxious to test the effectiveness of the car's armour plate. However, Kosche has shown conclusively, again by reading The Dispatch, that this damage had in fact already been inflicted at the time of the vehicle's capture in May 1945. How or when it was done is not certain. One can only note that the car had been sitting on a railway flatbed for some time in what was clearly a combat zone.8 Work carried out by CWM conservator Leslie Redman in 1996 on the leather seats has revealed gun-shot damage especially to the left rear and to the jump seats. Indeed a reinforcement bar in the latter was found to have a large elliptically-shaped hole blown in it, leading to some speculation by CWM staff that it was caused by a fairly large projectile, as from an aircraft.9 Whatever the case, attempts were made to repair most of this damage during R. J. Rumble's "restoration" of 1956, except for that in the windows. As Rumble explained to CWM Director Lee Murray: "Mr O'Connell required everything to be restored to its original condition except the windows, which he felt lent more authenticity to the war action the car had seen."10
10 Rumble also drew attention to the fact that the car had had a total of eighteen layers of paint applied to it. These were said to alter "from black to 'Luftwaffe green' — the car being repainted for state events or for field trips." The presence of the so-called "Luftwaffe green," of course, lent credence to the story of the car having belonged to Goering.11
11 As these alternating layers of black and so-called Luftwaffe Green paint were subsequently cited frequently in support of the notion that the car belonged to Goering, Kosche's own thoughts on the matter are worth recounting before proceeding further. He concludes that although the "car had undoubtedly a few layers of paint, the two uppermost being American in origin... [t]here is ... no support for this story." He quotes a driver who sometimes drove for Hitler to the effect that "to the best of his knowledge, none of the cars were given camouflage paint — there being no other explanation for the alleged 'Luftwaffe green'." Indeed, the type of vehicle possessed by the CWM was not usually used for field trips at all, which instead were the domain of another type of Mercedes, the much heavier six-wheeled Mercedes 770-G. "In any event," observes Kosche, "it is more likely that the colour would have been Army green rather than Luftwaffe grey."12
12 Claude Pratte offered the car to the CWM towards the end of October 1969. As Lee Murray wrote to his superior, Dr William Taylor, Director of the National Museum of Man*, on 3 November: "A gentleman from Quebec City has offered to make available to us, either by loan or gift, Field Marshal Goering's Staff car." Murray considered it to be "a very valuable historical item, and its acquisition would be very timely as it could become one of the chief features of our V-E Day display."13
13 This appears to have been the only justification necessary for the CWM to acquire the car. Like many other museums at this time the CWM had no acquistions policy and no formally constituted collections committee that vetted artifacts proposed to be brought into the collection. Indeed, the CWM had only moved into its new museum quarters at 330 Sussex Drive in Ottawa two years earlier. With only 67 000 artifacts in the collection, the primary impetus amongst museum staff at the time was to increase this number, the result being the close to half a million objects that the CWM has in its collection today. Inevitably, a large number of items came into the collection in this era that, while they were related to the general theme of warfare in the twentieth century, lacked that specific association with Canada's involvement in this warfare that has become the prime concern of today's collecting priorities. Examples are a large number of Soviet artillery pieces, two early marks of German Panzers, an Italian Carro Veloce 33 "tankette," and a turret off an American M-48 tank, none of which have any specifically Canadian reference at all. Probably the most prominent and well-known example, however, is Goering's, later, Hitler's, car.14
14 Pratte himself wrote on 10 November enclosing details of "Goering's bullet proof car that were given to me when I bought the car from Mr H. J. O'Connell."15 As these materials were very skimpy, however, over the following number of months the CWM attempted to obtain more information about the car, and also to find someone qualified to do the evaluation that was necessary to issue a gift tax receipt. It is interesting to note that almost from the beginning the CWM seems to have not been prepared to accept the car's attribution to Goering at face value, and looked for some means of associating it with Hitler. Thus in a letter to R. J. Rumble of 14 November 1969, requesting whatever additional information he had on the car, Lee Murray wrote: "In collaboration with the owner of the Second World War German Staff car that was reputed to have belonged to Adolf Hider... this Museum is attempting to piece together the history of the car and to evaluate its present worth—both as an antique car and as a relic of the Second World War."16 Note that there is no reference at all in this letter to the car's established reputation as having been associated with Goering. And a letter written a few months later to the potential evaluator, E. A. Jurist, President of the Vintage Car Store of New York, N.Y., Murray wrote: "This is one of seven [cars] delivered to German Army Headquarters in 1940, and which have since become known as 'Hitler' cars because it was in one or more of these large, armour-plated, open touring limousines that the German leader usually rode on ceremonial occasions." This letter noted only that the car was "reported to have been assigned to Field Marshal Goering." Whether there were solid historical reasons for such doubts, or whether they arose from wishful thinking is not certain, although one suspects the latter. For his part, Rumble attempted to correct what he perceived to be Murray's deviancy on the issue by repeating the received mythology: "There were seven of these units purchased in 1940 by the German Army Headquarters and this particular car was then issued to Goering, not Adolf Hitler as stated in the first paragraph of your letter. These facts were substantiated by the serial number, etc. and [sic] was used as his personal staff car."17
15 Rumble did supply one piece of critical information that up to that point had not been known — the car's factory serial number of 429334. He had taken it down, along with other technical data, off a plate attached to the car's bulkhead firewall. This discovery was "a big breakthrough," wrote Murray, and he immediately had it cabled off to the Daimler-Benz plant in Stuttgart hoping to receive more detailed information on the history of the car.18 The German Company did not respond, however, with Murray commenting wryly in a letter to Pratte of 29 January 1970: "I have noticed a reluctance in many Germans to admit they were around at all during the Second World War, and have a feeling that the same is true of this company."19 Finally, when by 11 February they had still not heard, Murray wrote for help to the German ambassador in Ottawa, Dr J. F. Ritter. "The Museum is extremely interested in a Mercedes Benz type 770 car which is in Canada," he wrote:
It is one of seven of these magnificent vehicles which were purchased by German Army Headquarters in 1940 and issued for service. The one that we are interested in is vehicle number 429334 and carries the original military license place [sic] 1Av148697. [Note that the license plate number was known this early, despite claims by Kosche that it was not revealed until 1980.] Part of the legend surrounding the car is that it was assigned for the use of Reichs Marshal Goering [sic].20
16 This at last produced results. The Embassy contacted the Ministry of Defence in Bonn, which in turn approached Mercedes Benz. The result was the first substantiated piece of historical documentation that was ever acquired on the car. The Embassy's military attaché, Colonel G. E. Stamp, wrote to Murray on 12 June:
It was confirmed by Mercedes Benz, Stuttgart, that the car in question had been delivered to the adjutancy of Adolf Hitler on 8 July 1940. It could not been [sic] found out whether the car had been used by Hermann Goring himself, but it is possible.
Additionally they found that the car had been sent to Daimler-Benz Company for repairs on 19 April, 1943 and was returned to Adolf Hitler's adjutancy again on 15 September 1943.
A photocopy of the factory worksheet was enclosed.21
17 In the meantime, a number of correspondents had been expressing doubts concerning the car's presumed affiliation with Hermann Goering. Thus on 17 February, when delivering his evaluation, Jurist contended that a:
... mistaken impression which has gained publicity is that each of the high-ranking members of the military and political staff of the Third Reich was assigned a particular 770K. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government provided car pools for visiting dignitaries who drew vehicles from these pools during their various visits to areas where parades or other public or private events were being held. However, several cars were assigned for Hitler's use ...22
18 On 16 June, the CWM's deputy chief curator, Ralph Manning, described the car in a briefing note for Olive Dickason, then of the Public Relations office of the National Museum of Man, as a "Mercedes Benz armoured staff car that was delivered to the adjutancy of Adolf Hitler on 8 July 1940 — one of the famous 'Hitler' staff cars." Manning evidently felt no need to draw attention to the car's association with Goering.
19 As has been seen, the CWM's acquisition of the car was completed on 15 May 1970, when Pratte was sent his gift tax receipt. The vehicle was not delivered to the CWM until September, as in the interim, at the special request of Mayor Jean Drapeau, it was put on show at the Man and His World exhibition in Montreal, a carry-over from the famous World Exposition of three years earlier. It is interesting to note that here it was displayed without qualification as "Hitler's Car."23
20 Despite the tendencies noted above to dissociate the car from Goering, when finally put on display at the CWM the vehicle was identified as "Goering's Staff Car." The caption, written by resident CWM historian, John Swettenham, repeated the known fact that it was delivered to Hitler's headquarters on 8 July 1940. It then introduced the slight qualification that "it is said to have been issued to Reichsmarschall Goering." It did, however, repeat the stories of its having had eighteen coats of paint, with Luftwaffe green for field trips and black for state occasions, and that it had been captured in 1945 by the 101st Airborne Division.24 Although there already were some doubts about these stories, both outside and inside the CWM, and in retrospect we know that this information was almost completely false, in fairness it must be said that the caption did reflect the prevailing weight of "expert" opinion on the car to that date. Evidently prepared to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb on the issue, the CWM even went to the trouble of putting fake number or registration plates on the car with the number WL-148697 — the initials WL being those of the Luftwaffe! This included painting this bogus number over the number on the car's one original registration plate at the rear!
21 On 14 September 1971 the CWM received a letter from Ottawa resident Collett Calverley casting further doubt on the association of the car with Goering. Calverley wrote expressly "to contest the claim that the vehicle was used by Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering." Although avowing that it was "always unpleasant to shatter delusions" he drew attention to the fact that the British already had a Mercedes, captured at Bad Homburg in 1945, that they claimed to have been Goering's. And noting that the British car had three door hinges, whereas the CWM's had only two, he argued: "Assuming the Nazi hierarchy was supplied 'from the top down,' and assuming there was a valid reason for changing the number of door hinges on the series of vehicles ... would it not be reasonable to conclude that the earlier models were more heavily armoured than later ones and that the Canadian one would fall into a more lightly armoured, later, and therefore more junior position in the series."25
22 Despite the weakness of Calverley's arguments his letter seems to have provoked a momentary flurry of doubt and reappraisal within the CWM. Thus Manning wrote to Murray on 17 September:
You know my feelings on the so-called "Goering" car we have. We have nothing to link it to him; nor do we have any worthwhile supporting evidence for its having been painted Luftwaffe green. This legend originated with Rumble Motors in Toronto, who did the overhaul in Toronto, and they wouldn't know Luftwaffe green from Wehrmacht green. I did at one time suggest a method by which the colour might be tested but [a staff member's] sickness has kept it from being pursued.
Should not John S[wettenham] prepare the reply — he prepared the caption?
Murray replied back two days later: "Ask John to prepare reply and maybe we should make our own test as suggested by you."26
23 Manning's plan as outlined to Swettenham in mid-November involved the removal of a paint chip from the car and then comparing it with a chip from another item in the collection "known to be still painted with Luftwaffe green." He also asked Swettenham to "carry the ball on this." Swettenham responded testily to Lee Murray on 23 November:
1. Ralph can hardly fob this one off on me.
2. He ... was behind this project all through. You will recall that it was Hitler's car until he changed it to Goering's at a meeting.
3. I wrote the label from research material which he supplied and there is a note of caution in it — the car "is said to have been issued" to Goering.
Swettenham's remarks suggest that CWM staff had been on the verge of identifying the car with Hitler, and that it was only Manning's reservations that prevented them from doing so. If this indeed was the case then Manning, who had strong personal doubts of his own about the attribution of the car to Goering, was clearly not yet willing to let these doubts influence the historical message that the museum presented about the car to the public.
24 Meanwhile, the CWM's letter to Calverley of 5 November, presumably written by Swettenham but bearing Murray's signature, pointed out that "we have been careful to caption this specimen as 'said to have been issued to Hermann Goring' — which may seem somewhat disingenuous in light of the fact that the caption was headed 'Goering's Staff Car'." Swettenham went on to observe that the possibility of the car being Goering's was "enhanced" by its having alternate coats of black and Luftwaffe green paint, "thus supporting the premise that it was used by a high Air Force officer when visiting units in the field."
25 Whether or not the test on the paint chips was ever carried out is not recorded. In any case, Swettenham's caption, identifying the car as Goering's, was that which visitors to the CWM continued to read for the next decade, and the artifact continued to be known to most, both inside and outside the museum, as Goering's car. Indeed, the February 1974 British periodical After the Battle ran an article on the car entitled "Hermann Goering's Mercedes Benz." This article repeated most of the myths and legends that had accumulated concerning the car that linked it to Goering, and a photograph clearly shows the CWM's faked registration plate of WL-148697.27 Eight years later this same publication was to carry Ludwig Kosche's corrected version, that for the first time told the real story of the car.
26 Although his official position was as the CWM's librarian, Kosche had an M.A. in History besides his library degree and while at the CWM his interests went well beyond the holdings of the library. He was perhaps especially well suited for a study of the Mercedes, in that he was of German origin, and his command of the language permitted a thorough sifting of German sources.
27 By November 1979 plans were afoot to move the car from the CWM's Third Floor to the Second Floor Galleries. Victor Suthren, then the museum's chief of exhibits, noted in a memorandum to museum historian Bernard Pothier of 1 November that it "seems to need a new caption," and asked Pothier to undertake it.28 When completed, Pothier's own caption contained no reference to Goering at all, which probably reflected growing doubts on this point amongst CWM staff. Instead it was entitled simply "German Staff Car, 1940-45." While it contained no specific references to the Reichsmarschall, the new caption did, nonetheless, repeat the hoary old tale of its being painted with eighteen alternating coats of Luftwaffe green and black paint, to be "used alternatively for Luftwaffe field inspections and for state occasions." And its capture was still attributed to the 101st Airborne Division.29
28 In his comments on the caption, Ralph Manning reverted to suggested emphases that he had not raised since the car had been first acquired back in 1970. "Could we not get in here that this is one of the so-called 'Hitler staff cars'? of which there were eight?", he asked Pothier on 11 January 1980. He then went on to repeat his earlier opinion that "This Luftwaffe green was made up out of whole cloth by the car dealer in Toronto... "30 And earlier, probably in response to a memo from Lee Murray questioning the absence of any reference to Coering in the caption, Manning wrote: "we have been unable to come up with one tittle of evidence that our German staff car had any particular relationship to the Field Marshal. I think we should drop the reference in any caption."31
29 It was probably concerns such as these that inspired Kosche to begin his research on the car. Kosche was helped immeasurably by an action the CWM took in 1980 before he began to work. The layer of paint that had been applied to the car's original registration plate at the back was removed to reveal the original number underneath — 1 Av148697. (Although in fact the number had only been obscured since the car was first put on exhibition in 1971, and the CWM had been well aware of it before then.) The uncovering of this number was to prove crucial to Kosche, and was to enable him, along with the car's original factory production number, to search out more specific information on the car than anybody had found before. He was to prove conclusively that it had in fact been used by Hitler himself and not by Goering.
30 Kosche's investigations revealed that the 1A in the registration number denoted a Berlin location, and that the superscript letter v (in red) became mandatory soon after the outbreak of war in September 1939 for all vehicles that were not affiliated with such official bodies as the army, airforce, police, and postal service. This was in fact proof that the car was not used by the military, and perhaps most significantly for our purposes, not by the Luftwaffe.
31 Furthermore, and probably most helpfully, Kosche discovered a number of photographs showing Hitler actually riding in the car. One, taken eleven days after the car's arrival at the Reichs Chancellery, shows the Nazi leader riding in its front passenger seat on his way to make a speech at the Kroll Opera House, the substitute Reichstag. All the physical details of this car are similar to the CWM's, except minor ones that could easily have been altered later, such as black out lights and metal covers for the spare tires, and the registration number 1 Av148697 clearly visible.32 Other photographs show Hitler using the car on 10 September 1941 during a visit to Marienbad to meet the visiting ruler of Hungary, Admiral Horthy; on 28 November 1941 when he attended the funeral of the fighter ace Werner Môlders; and on 15 March 1942 when he arrived at the Zeughaus in Berlin to make an address. The latter is the last known occasion that Hitler used the car.
32 The next documented reference is for 19 April 1943 when, as noted, it was sent back to the Daimler-Benz plant for repairs. There is no record of what the problem was, and the vehicle was returned to the Reichs Chancellery on 15 September. Thereafter all references to it ceased until it was captured by Sergeant Azara at Laufen, in May 1945.33
33 Azara was able to use the car only briefly before it was taken over by one of his superior officers of the 20th Armored Division, Brigadier General Cornelius Daly. For the latter's use it was painted olive drab and provided with the marking of a large white star, which was the distinguishing mark born by all vehicles used in the Western Allied armies. It is interesting to note that recent conservation work has revealed the "barely visible outline of a star" in the centre of the fabric roof, its presence being verified by infra-red photography. This doubtless dates from its period of use by General Daly, and confirms that this roof is the original.34These were the colours and markings the car bore when it was shipped to the United States.
34 After its arrival in Boston on 8 August 1945, an article in that city's Daily Globe was headlined: "Goering's Auto Bullet Proof to protect Fat Marshal's Hide." The newspaper ran some photographs of the car, one of which, showing the dashboard and the inside surface of the windscreen, appeared later in the Newsweek magazine of 20 August. The caption noted that "there were three broken points on the windscreen with veins or cracks running from each, unquestionably where someone had taken a pot-shot at Hermann or some American G.I. had tried to find out if that glass were really bullet proof." Clearly the damage evident in the photograph exactly matches that on the windscreen of the CWM's car today, confirming that the two cars were indeed one and the same. In addition, the reading on the car's broken odometer upon its arrival in the United States was 13 900 kilometres, precisely the same as that on the CWM's car, the gauge evidently having never been subsequently repaired.35
35 The car's subsequent history has been outlined above, from its sale at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1956 to a Canadian collector, its donation for a tax receipt to the CWM in 1970, and the subsequent quandaries experienced within the museum as to the precise history of the car. Kosche's article, which answered most historical questions about the car, and firmly identified it with Adolf Hitler, was published in February 1982. The wheels of CWM bureaucracy revolved slowly, however, and it was not until a year and a half later that revisions were made to the caption that accompanied the car in the galleries, which still linked it to Goering. The new caption, which was ready in April 1984, finally identified the car with Hitler. "Photographic evidence shows that Adolf Hitler made use of it at least until 1942," it read, and its capture was at last correctly attributed to the U.S. 20th Armored.
36 Work then proceeded on constructing an exhibit space deemed appropriate to the display of the newly significant artifact. In September 1986 its opening was announced, and Kosche's discoveries about the car emphasized, in a CWM press release. "A Bavarian streetscape and two German officers provide a new backdrop for the Canadian War Museum's 7.7 litre Grosser Mercedes," it proclaimed. "Once attributed to Hermann Goering, the sleek Daimler-Benz armoured convertible has now been positively identified as Adolf Hitler's personal staff car ... Archival research by a former librarian has matched the car's original number plate (later overpainted) with the German police registration number 1Av148697."
37 The car sits in the CWM's Second Floor Gallery in front of its mock Bavarian Streetscape to this day. A visually striking and impressive artifact, it is one that visitors to the museum tend to remember — not infrequently to the exclusion of anything else. Thus in an interview with J. L. Granatstein just before he took up his appointment as CWM Director General and Chief Executive Officer in mid-1998, it was the only CWM artifact that CBC Ottawa host John Lacharity could remember. Moreover, in an article on the holdings of Ottawa Museums published in April 1998, the Globe and Mail chose to run a photo of it in preference to all the other artifacts that the CWM has on display.36 It is doubtful mat the car would have the same effect if it were still identified as belonging to Goering.
38 Thus while the artifact itself remained the same, its identification with Hitler not only greatly increased its monetary value, but transformed its significance, both for the museum itself and for the visiting public. It is not, of course, that the car as an artifact provided any more insight into the nature of Hitler's persona or policies than it did into Goering's. But its positive identification as a car that had been used by the Führer himself imputed to it new meanings and levels of significance that transcended its status as a car, even one with a known Nazi provenance. This, of course, takes us beyond material history as we know it, and closer perhaps to the world of the personality cult and the collector. Still it is a constant of museum life that, however intrinsically fascinating a piece is in its own right, a perceived association with a famous or infamous figure tends to enhance its interest to the public. And this in turn can provide the museum with a useful tool that can help to explain historical developments and the unfolding of historical events.
39 This is what the CWM hoped it could do with Hitler's car. By situating the car against the setting of the Bavarian streetscape, replete with other tangible icons of the Nazi era, such as swastika banners and a mannequin in an SS uniform, it hoped to focus attention on the rise of Nazism and its significance for the origins of the Second World War. But the presence of the sleek black roadster and the accompanying Nazi paraphernalia was in fact criticized for glamourizing the Nazi regime. And doubtless the car and the exhibit did evoke what might be termed the Leni Riefenstahl view of Hitler, with its emphasis on adulating crowds, torchlight parades, and Nuremberg rallies, more than on the Hitler of military aggression, racist politics, and the Holocaust. The Museum responded to these criticisms eight years ago by adding a backdrop of photographs from the death camps to emphasize the horrific consequences of Hitler and Naziism. Yet, as noted, the car is a powerful enough presence that it is still the memory of it, and its associations with Hitler, that often predominate amongst visitors' recollections of the museum — possibly an uncomfortable reminder of the fascination that items associated with Hitler and the Third Reich continue to exert.
40 As has been seen, the car was acquired in an earlier more free-wheeling and opportunistic era in the history of museum collecting. It probably would not be acquired today, when much more tightly focused collecting policies are the rule. The specific mandate of the CWM, of course, is Canadian military history, with which Hitler's car has only a minimal association. The car can in ways be seen as a testament to the possible pitfalls inherent in displaying artifacts obtained under less focused circumstances, especially if, like Hitler's car, they have prominent and evocative associations with important historical developments that go beyond the specific thematic emphasis of the museum. If not handled carefully, they can draw unwanted attention, possibly at the expense of the museum's main message. The problem for the CWM, then, remains that of reconciling the car's undoubted visual impact and interest to visitors with the equally undoubted interpretative and pedagogical problems that its presence in the museum creates. It remains to be seen whether such reconciliation can be achieved.
NOTES:
1 Ludwig Kosche, "Story of a Car," After the Battle (1982): 1-13.
2 Ibid., 2
3 CWM Artifact File 19700158-001, R. J. Rumble, Rumble Pontiac Buick Ltd, Toronto, to L. F. Murray, CWM, 27 November 1969.
4 Kosche, "Story of a Car," 4.
5 Ibid., 5.
6 Ibid., 7-8.
7 Ibid., 9.
8 Ibid.,4-5.
9 See CWM Conservation File, Condition Report and Treatment Record, 12700158 Grosser Mercedes, Leslie Redman, 23 October 1996.
10 CWM Artifact File 19790158-001, R. J. Rumble to L. F. Murray, 27 November 1969.
11 Kosche, "Story of a Car," 9. Unfortunately, the letter where Rumble makes the claim about the eighteen layers of paint is missing from CWM files.
12 Ibid.
13 CWM Artifact File, 19700158-001, Lee Murray to Dr W. E. Taylor, re Field Marshal Goering's Staff Car, 3 November 1969
14 For more on this era in the history of CWM collecting see Cameron Pulsifer, "The Canadian War Museum: Past, Present, and Future?", 20 March 1998, unpublished manuscript on file, CWM.
15 Ibid., Claude Pratte to R. V. Manning, CWM, 10 November 1969.
16 Ibid., L. F. Murray to Rumble Motors, Toronto, 14 November 1969.
17 Ibid., R. J. Rumble to L. F. Murray, 27 November 1969.
18 Ibid., L. F. Murray to R. J. Rumble, 2 December 1969; Canadian War Museum to Daimler Benz, Stuttgart, Cablegram, 2 December 1969.
19 Ibid., L. F. Murray to Claude Pratte, 29 January 1970.
20 Ibid., L. F. Murray to His Excellency Dr J. F. Ritter, Ambassador of Germany, 11 February 1970.
21 Ibid., G. E. Stamp. Col. Air, Military and Naval Attaché, German Embassy, Ottawa, to Canadian War Museum, 12 June 1970.
22 Ibid., E. A. Jurist, Vintage Car Store Inc., to L. F. Murray, 17 February 1970.
23 Ibid., C. Pratte to C. J. Mackenzie, Secretary General, National Museums, 25 May 1970; on its being displayed as "Hitler's Car" see Kosche, "Story of a Car," 10.
24 CWM Artifact File 19700158-001, "Goering's Staff Car," caption, 1970-1980.
25 Ibid., Collett Calverley to The Curator, Canadian War Museum, 14 September 1971.
26 Ibid., Ralph Manning to Lee Murray, re The "Goering" Car, 17 September 1971; Murray to Manning, 19 September 1971.
27 "Hermann Goering's Mercedes Benz," After the Battle, no. 5 (February 1974): 52-53.
28 CWM Artifact File, 19700158-001, V. Suthren to B. Pothier, 1 November 1979.
29 Ibid., German Staff Car, 1940-1945, caption.
30 Ibid., Ralph Manning to Bernard Pothier, 11 January 1980.
31 Ibid., Ralph Manning to Lee Murray, 27 November 1979.
32 Ibid., see esp. facing p. 1 for photograph, and p. 3.
33 Ibid., 4.
34 CWM Conservation File, Condition Rep[ort] and Treatment Proposal, 19700158-001, Daimler Benz AG, Helen Holt, no date (treatment still underway).
35 Ibid., 6-7.
36 "Picasso on the Side," Globe and Mail, 15 April 1998.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Bromacker Fossil Project Part IX: The Dissorophoid Amphibians Tambachia, Rotaryus, and Georgenthalia, Capable Travelers
The Dissorophoidea are a group of ancient amphibians that were common about 290 million years ago, when the animals fossilized in the Bromacker quarry were alive. The group consists of small to medium-sized water- and land-dwelling vertebrates (animals with backbones) that ate invertebrates (e.g., dragonflies, cockroaches, and millipedes) and vertebrates smaller than themselves. Most scientists agree that modern amphibians (frogs, salamanders, and the reclusive, worm-like, subterreanean caecilians) had their origins among the dissorophoids. Three disssorophoid species are currently known from the Bromacker quarry, and at least one and possibly two more are yet to be described. Two of the described species, Tambachia trogallas and Rotaryus gothae, are members of the dissorophoid subgroup Trematopidae, and the other, Georgenthalia clavinasica, is a member of the subgroup Amphibamiformes. All of them inhabited the terrestrial realm and most likely only returned to water to breed.
Photograph (left) and reconstruction (right) of the skull of the holotype and only known specimen of Tambachia trogallas in dorsal (= top) view. Photograph by the author (2013) and reconstruction by Stuart Sumida, modified from Sumida et al. (1998).
The first trematopid discovered in the Bromacker quarry was found by Thomas Martens in 1980, and it is represented by a poorly preserved skull and skeleton. Stuart Sumida, as lead author of the scientific paper presenting it, coined the name Tambachia trogallas. Tambachia refers to the Tambach Formation, the rock unit preserving the Bromacker fossils, which in turn is named after the nearby village of Tambach, which is now merged with the adjacent town Dietharz to become Tambach-Dietharz. “Trogallas” is from the Greek “trogo,” meaning munch or nibble, and “allas,” meaning sausage, in reference to all of the bratwurst consumed during Bromacker field seasons by the authors of the Tambachia publication (Stuart, Dave Berman, and Thomas). The state where the the quarry is located, Thuringia, is famous for its bratwurst and rightly so. A hot bratwurst for lunch was always welcomed when we experienced what Thomas called “Scandanavian summers,” which were cold and rainy. The then-Bürgermeister (mayor) of Tambach-Dietharz, who also was a butcher, was so thrilled by the name that he hosted an annual bratwurst lunch featuring brats that he’d made. This tradition was carried on by subsequent Bürgermeisters, though they had to buy the featured main course.
Bratwurst lunch in the Thuringian Forest close to the Bromacker quarry. Seated are (from left to right) unknown, Rainer Samietz (then Director of the Museum der Natur Gotha, now retired), Thomas Martens, Johannes Müller (then field assistant and now Professor at Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin), the author, and Stuart Sumida. The Bürgermeister is standing behind Thomas. His bratwurst grill, which he transported in his SUV, is between the vehicles. Photo by Dave Berman (2002).
Skull and partial skeleton of Rotaryus gothae in left lateral (= side) view. Photograph by the author, 2008.
When Rotaryus gothae was found in 1998, only part of the skull was exposed, so we took out a large block expecting a complete skeleton to be preserved, as typically occurs at the Bromacker. Once I began preparing the specimen, however, I was extremely disappointed to find that only a small portion of the body of the animal was present. At least we had the skull, the most scientifically important part of the skeleton. Dave led the scientific study of Rotaryus, and he named it in honor of the Gotha Rotary Club, an organization that generously provided financial support for Bromacker fieldwork. Dave sent the head of the Gotha Rotary Club three choices for the fossil’s name, and the members voted on which one to use.
At the time that Tambachia and Rotaryus were named and described in scientific publications in 1998 and 2011, respectively, trematopids were known only from the USA. Their presence at the Bromacker added to the growing list of animals previously thought to only inhabit North America, such as Diadectes and Seymouria. In hindsight, it is not surprising that trematopids also had a more cosmopolitan distribution, because although they are amphibians, their skeletons were strong enough to support their body out of water and withstand the effects of gravity, thus enabling them to disperse to far corners of the world (though hypotheses of such dispersal assume that no physical or climatic barriers prevented movement).
I was the lucky person who discovered, in 2002, the amphibamiform Georgenthalia clavinasica. I recall lifting up a block of rock that I had loosened with a hammer and chisel and seeing two ghostly eye openings staring back at me. The rest of the skeleton was preserved with the skull, but unfortunately all bone beyond the skull was extremely eroded from groundwater and had the consistency of mashed potatoes.
Photograph (left) and reconstruction (right) of the skull of Georgenthalia clavinasica in dorsal (= top) view. Both by Jason Anderson, 2007.
After Tambachia was named, the Bürgermeister of the nearby village of Georgenthal, whose boundaries included the Bromacker quarry, approached Dave about naming a fossil after his village. Dave then asked Jason Anderson, a colleague from the University of Calgary and the project’s lead researcher, to name it Georgenthalia. Jason created clavinasica from the Latin “clavis” for key, and “nasica” for nostril, in reference to the fossil’s keyhole-shaped nostril, a unique feature that differentiates Georgenthalia from all other amphibamiforms.
Jason, as lead author of a 2008 scientific publication, concluded that the relationship of Georgenthalia to other amphibamiforms was uncertain. Computer algorithms are used to analyze relationships of organisms by tabulating the proportion of unique characteristics shared between the members of the group under study. A group of organisms that share unique characters is called a clade, and members of a clade are considered to be more closely related to each other than they are to members of other clades. These relationships are depicted in a diagram of relatedness called a cladogram.
A 2019 study by dissorophoid expert Rainer Schoch (Curator, Naturkunde Museum Stuttgart) that investigated the ancestry of modern amphibians revealed Georganthalia as a member of a clade that also includes modern amphibians (see figure below). The fossil Gerobatrachus, however, is more closely related to modern amphibians than it is to the clade consisting of Georgenthalia and Branchiosauridae (a group of aquatic amphibamiforms). This indicates that although Georgenthalia (along with Branchiosauridae) is in the clade containing modern amphibians, it is not directly ancestral to them.
Cladogram showing the relationship of Georgenthalia (far right) to modern amphibians. Cladogram modified from Schoch (2019); images of modern amphibians from Wikimedia Commons.
Stay tuned for my next post, which will feature yet another terrestrial amphibian, a fossil from a locality in Tambach-Dietharz.
If you would like to learn more about Tambachia, Rotaryus, or Georgenthalia, please follow the links below.
Tambachia
Rotaryus
Georgenthalia
Amy Henrici is Collection Manager in the Section of Vertebrate Paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Museum employees are encouraged to blog about their unique experiences and knowledge gained from working at the museum.
#Carnegie Museum of Natural History#Bromacker Fossil Project#Tambachia trogallas#Rotaryus gothae#Georgenthalia clavinasica
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Big Interview: Willemijn Verkaik - "I couldn’t be happier!" (West End Frame - December 2014)
Interview Internet Archive - 2/∞ [x]
Earlier this year, Willemijn won West End Frame’s West End Debut Award for her portrayal of Elphaba in Wicked (Apollo Victoria). The Dutch star first played the role in Germany in 2007. She then starred as Elphaba in Holland before joining the Broadway company, making her the only actress to have played the iconic character in three different languages. Following a successful stint in New York, Willemijn joined the London production to tremendous acclaim.
During a break from rehearsals, I recently spoke to Willemijn about her return to the London stage, why Women on the Verge is a new challenge and what the rest of the cast are like to work with. We also discussed her emotional departure from Wicked, why winning West End Frame’s Best West End Debut Award meant so much to her plus much, much more…
Women on the Verge has been completely re-workshopped since its Broadway run and is almost like a totally new show. At what point did you come on board?
I didn’t do any of the workshops so for me this is really fresh. I first heard of the show when I was auditioning and I started to do my research.
What were your first impressions? The music is so refreshing!
I thought the music was amazing! David Yazbek is a genius – the songs that he’s written for Pepa (Tamsin Greig) and Lucia (Haydn Gwynne) and for everyone are just so thrilling and special. All those Spanish influences are very refreshing. I just love the way he brings a song into a scene and gets that Spanish feeling. He captures the feel of the scene and the show… I am a fan [laughs]!
So what has it been like to work with him? He’s been over, hasn’t he?
Yes he has! He’s very funny and has very dry humour. Bart (Bartlett Sher) and Jeffrey (Lane) and everyone are all very funny. David really is a genius and it’s great to be working with someone like him. I just want to grab on to how he works and how he thinks. Sometime he’ll just go away for a while and have his headphones on and then come back with a new suggestion. When he came in with the last song – the finale – everyone just said, “Wow, you are amazing!”
Being a part of an original cast of a brand new production is very different to going into something more established. How have you found the rehearsal process? Things much be changing all the time?
It is great! For me it’s a big challenge. You know my history with Wicked – I was doing it for about six years – and in between I’ve done some other stuff like Songs For A New World and Mamma Mia. It’s not like I’ve only been doing Wicked, but to be focusing on something really new and to be creating my own character starting from scratch is fantastic. Seeing everyone digging into their roles and digging into the scenes is amazing. Everyone is working together to make each scene more interesting, we try out different things. It’s so great for me, I’m just really happy that I can dive into something totally different.
What has the atmosphere been like in rehearsals? It’s really interesting because you all come from different backgrounds…
That’s true! There are a lot of people coming from different backgrounds. Everyone is helping each other and supporting each other. If I am finding something difficult then I can always ask Haydn or Tam and then they can ask me something. It doesn’t matter if it is someone from stage management, from music or from the cast – everyone is working together and everyone is working towards that one goal… on the 17th December… that’s the moment [laughs]
What do you think people who don’t know much about Women on the Verge can expect?
I’m hoping they will come out of the show with muscle pain from laughing and feeling like they have spent a night in Madrid because of all the great songs and the Spanish roots. It’s such a great story. I’m very curious to see how audiences react. There have been so many moments where I’ve just watched everyone and thought, ‘wow’. Ricardo (Afonso) for instance starts the show and straight away I get goosebumps!
Tell me about your character, what has she been like to explore?
I’m still doing research, but she’s a tough, very efficient lawyer. She wants the job done and wants to do it well, but also has a weak spot. It’s very interesting.
What is it like getting to know a new character? A tough lawyer couldn’t be more different to Elphaba or Donna!
She’s completely different! I’m curious to know what people who have seen me play other roles will say. It’s a challenge! It’s great to dig into something so different and to get away from everything that I’ve done before.
Everyone was so excited when it was announced you were coming back to London; how does it feel to be back?
London is a great city and the theatre scene is so amazing… there are so many things to do and so many things to see. For me, having to cut my run short at Wicked because of my back problems and then already, after four months, being able to be back again in this great theatre city is… amazing. I’m so thankful and so happy, every day I’m saying to myself, “Would you ever have thought that you would be walking down the London streets when four months ago you were in a totally different state?” I couldn’t be happier!
Are there any sights left that you need to see? I guess when you’re playing Elphaba or rehearsing a major new musical you don’t get much time!
Yes, there are a few more things I should see. I haven’t been to all the museums. Celinde (Schoenmaker) said to me, “You have to see the Natural History Museum, it’s amazing!” Of course my family and friends came over and I just put them on a big red bus and drove with them to all of the great things to see.
2013 was an absolutely crazy year for you! You made your Broadway debut, your West End debut, you voiced the lead character in the Dutch and German language versions of the highest grossing animated movie of all-time AND starred in the Stuttgart production of Mamma Mia! What was that year like for you? Did you get a chance to actually take any of it in or was it just a big whirlwind?
[laughs] Wow! Well, both. If I look back on it I think, ‘Really? Did I do all of that in one year?! Really?!’ It didn’t feel that way at the time though, it just happened. Yes it was a whirlwind because all these amazing things happened – it was like, ‘Oh my god I’m on Broadway… oh my god I’m the voice of Elsa… oh my god I’m in Mamma Mia… oh my god I’m in the West End!’ [laughs] When I look back it seems more crazy than when I was doing it. It happened and I had the energy for it and it was all great! So yeah… it was one of the better years [laughs]!
We obviously have to discuss Wicked. When you were cast in the German production, what would you have said if I’d told you that you were going to play the role in Holland, on Broadway and in the West End?
I would definitely have said, “No way!”
Now that you’re out of the ‘Wicked bubble’ what is it like to look back at your incredible career within the show?
I have such good memories! Wicked has a very special place in my heart. Just to be cast as Elphaba in Germany was amazing; I couldn’t believe they had given me the chance to do that! I’ve been given such great chances and I’ve learnt so much. People ask me sometimes, “Do you ever get enough of the role?” and I can honestly say no… still now! It’s an amazing role, you have to fight every day to get her out there and to fight ‘Defying Gravity’. Of course things have happened and having to cut my run short in London wasn’t the best thing, but I still had such a great year there. You build amazing friendships; Savannah (Stevenson) is such a dear friend to me, we still text each other every week. In every cast you have a few people who become so dear to you, that’s what the show also does – it is about friendship. I had a great journey, I had great chances and now I can just put that in a box and with a good, warm feeling I can go down another path.
Did it feel strange to recently return to the Apollo?
Yes, I saw the last show with Kerry [Ellis] and everyone which was very emotional. It was so great to see everyone!
This is the question I have to ask every Elphaba… do you remember what used to go through your mind each night during those few seconds before you defied gravity?
[long pause] Good question! You just know this spectacular thing is going to happen. The whole scene before helps you to get there… the only thing I can say is that if your energy is too low you will have to fight harder. I always tried to build, build, build, build, build and then I would just go! You see that happening with every Elphaba. It’s not really a thought; it’s more of a feeling.
A few weeks ago you were back in Holland taking part in the huge ‘Musicals in Concert’ show. What was it like to sing a bit of ‘No Good Deed’ and ‘Defying Gravity’ again?
…in front of twelve thousand people! It’s crazy, right?! It’s in such a big arena and all those people are coming to see us there, I felt like a rock star! It was amazing and great to be one of the performers standing on that stage. I know that a lot of people wanted to hear me sing ‘Defying Gravity’. I had to sing it in Dutch which I hadn’t done for a while so I had to train my muscles again for that! I mean, as I’ve said, I’m used to having a certain energy for that song, but when you perform it out of the blue it is a very different feeling. You have to walk out on stage and then hit those notes! So backstage I was building up that energy.
But ‘Defying Gravity’ is no longer your only signature song…
[laughs] I know! ‘Let It Go’! I have two now… yes [laughs]! And they’re both the two easiest songs to sing [laughs]!
[laughs] What was it like to sing ‘Let It Go’ in an arena with everyone singing the words back to you?
It was an amazing feeling. There’s some sort of warmth you feel from the audience. You step on that stage and it feels so great and I feel so much power from that. It wasn’t 1,800 in the Apollo Victoria, but it was 12,000 in an arena who gave me that feeling – you just, as we say in Holland, grow a few inches higher!
And now you’re about to open in the Playhouse which is one of the smallest West End theatres!
I know, and for this show it’s perfect. It’s the kind of show that needs to stay in a sort of living room situation. I have done a few smaller shows before and it’s a totally different energy. I’m really looking forward to it, that’s the great thing about this job! You can go from a big arena to a smaller theatre. We get to switch around and you can learn from everything.
You’ve spoken in the past about wanting to do an album… is that something you’re still aiming to do?
It’s still on my list but I’ve been saying that for a long time [laughs]. I keep saying my album, my album, my album, but I’m not going to say it anymore [laughs] because everyone is expecting something! I really don’t know when I’m going to do it, but it’s definitely at the top of my list!
We need to talk about your West End Frame Award!
Yes, thank you very much for that!
The support you received was just incredible! What was it like to have all that support behind you?
Well at that time, because I was in a difficult situation, it was such an amazing amount of support. I had to leave Wicked and I didn’t want to leave, but everyone wanted to give me so much support… what else could I ask for? I’m still getting emotional when I think about it because it was a very hard time. To have all those people saying, “Willemijn, we’re there for you” was fantastic.
There are people who will travel all around the world to see you!
It’s amazing! It’s incredible, they’re so dedicated. When I announced I was leaving Wicked people all over the world wanted to make that effort to be there for my last night.
Right, time for a very stagey question. I’m sending you to a desert island and you can only take three musical theatre songs with you. Which three are you going to take and why?
[laughs] What will I take with me?! Which ones do I love…? Umm…. well… I would need three atmospheres, so a happy song, a sad song and… a crazy one. That’s what I think! So, my happy song would be something from Avenue Q. I like them all! Can I take the whole album?
No, that’s definitely cheating!
[laughs] Ok, I’m going to take ‘Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist’ because it would really make me laugh. The sad song would probably have to be something from Aida which always gets me down very easily in a good way. I’m going to go for ‘Easy As Life’. So I have funny and sad, now I need something crazy…
Maybe you need something big and belty?
Yes, let’s do a big and belty one! I’m not going to take Wicked with me because it’s in my system – I don’t need to hear it. My big belty crazy song would be… oh I love ‘Don’t Rain On My Parade’ (from Funny Girl). I did it in the arena too!
I know you’re here until next May, but do you have any idea what you might like to do next? Most people would just look for their next West End show but you have endless options! You could do so many different things in so many different countries!
I have a lot of options and am very open minded. I want to challenge myself and still be able to spend enough time with my husband, which can sometimes be very difficult. I always have to see if we can do it and if we’re both happy – that is one of the most important things. Of course this career is really great and important, but the most important thing is having my hubby there.
#*o#archive#interview#women on the verge#willemijn verkaik#her legendary 15 second singing solo *chef's kiss*
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Dieter Roth
Dieter Roth (1930–1998) was one of the most diverse artists in the second half of the last century. He was a painter, graphic designer, sculptor, publisher, musician, filmmaker, as well as a poet. Although he himself was interested in collecting and archiving, Roth’s complex and extremely varied oeuvre presents museums with a difficult task when it comes to the preservation of his works. Beyond the ironic and contradictory statements which he made, this is due to the nature of the works themselves: complex installation art; monumental objects and sculptures made from edible substances, such as chocolate, sugar, yoghurt, cheese, bread, mince and spices, which beetles and micro-organisms then transform. And while mutability and transience are inherent in all works of art, Roth accelerates these phenomena, making them visible within a short period of time. Mortality is, in effect, paraded in front of us. And so, when setting aside the ambiguity of the works for a moment, we can see that Dieter Roth was extremely interested in the structure of decay – its form, play of colours, the variations of putrefaction and mould, and their ornamental aspects, the natural mutation of things – and felt that chance, as a shaping element, should be a part of the creation process.
Do we have the right to dispute these artistic intentions because of our responsibility as museums to acquire, conserve, research, communicate and exhibit? Besides the usual preservation of the aesthetic and historical dimensions of a work, in Roth’s case, the museum has the contradictory need to conserve that which was intended to be ephemeral. And so we need to ask: is it legitimate to slow down the decay processes in a museum, in order to preserve the object for reasons of cultural heritage? What strategies can an institution pursue if the conservation of a work appears to contradict the intention of the artist who created it? Can a replica be a way of overcoming this paradox?
Taking into account the processual nature of these works, there is still the question of when is the endpoint of such ‘living works’ reached. At what point is an adequate interaction between the viewer and the work no longer possible, making its exhibition no longer meaningful? What changes does processual decay entail: colour changes and discoloration, distortion, loss of elements or collapse? Can these works reach a state of aging in their material continuity that poses a threat to their integrity or which contradicts their importance in terms of art history? It is less the result and more the continuing genesis of the work – its change and deformation through to decay – that is of importance. Is the endpoint therefore only reached at the point of material disintegration? Or is it reached through intervention in an immutable process and by acting contrary to the original artistic intention? Dieter Roth himself described the state of hardly perceptible degradation that works of art often reach after initial rapid degradation as a ‘museum life’.
Fig 2 – 1972
This threshold of slow aging has been passed by the sculpture of the Gartenzwerg2 created in 1972 and now in the Kunstmuseum Stuttgart. Because large cracks are forming in the chocolate casing which encloses the gnome, it is in danger of falling apart in the near future. Should we consider having a replica made to allow the visitor to visualise the original sculptural form? Admittedly, that is one of the ideas which comes to mind in this case. But are such approaches also to be adopted for his complex installation art which comprise numerous parts; the object images that have been assembled with great care; or the accumulation collages3 of diverse foods that give little clue any more as to the original contents? For example, what form should a replica of the latter works take? New layers of edible products such as bread, cheese and sausage mounted on a wooden sheet with milk and yoghurt poured over them? This option would limit the work to processuality and neglect any attempt to retain its authenticity, which may also include a large number of levels of meaning such as the aesthetic, historical, artistic, social and scientific dimensions.4 Umberto Eco spoke of the inequality of project and result: ‘A work of art is both a trace of that which it wanted to be and of what it actually is, if the two values do not coincide.’5 If a work is viewed as an object possessing certain structural characteristics and very diverse meanings, then an aspect like the degree of decay could lead the viewer to draw a parallel between the life of the work and his/her own life up to that point – something no longer possible with a replica.
In respect to the dialectic inherent in Roth’s work, we have to ask what factors would induce us to create replicas of his works.
1. The replica as a copy for exhibition purposes.6 For example, in order to make fragile works which are sensitive to shock and vibration more accessible in an era of numerous changing exhibitions.
2. The replica as a replacement. In the case of lost or damaged elements within an installation or an object image, this practice could be considered an equivalent to inpainting, which is intended to facilitate the reading and experience of a work.
3. The replica as a duplicate, documentation, and didactic aid to understanding. It could be shown side by side with the original, which is now unrecognisable as a result of aging, in order to help the viewer engage with the work, as well as presenting the different stages in processual decay?
4. The replica as a starting point for a new aging process. As mentioned earlier, this would, however, reduce the work to its processual character.
Setting aside the questions of authorisation and value, and the problem of control over the replica in Roth’s oeuvre, in which there are numerous editions, we also have to ask whether it is our intention to preserve for future generations the material form of works which have decay as their theme. Or would the importance of the artistic statement not be more powerfully put across if it was available solely in written and photographic documentation, as evidence of protest against the supposed eternal nature of art. ‘Fotogeschichten können anstelle der Restaurierungen treten,’8 [Photography can take the place of restoration as historical record] Roth once said. If, however, we want to prevent the decomposition of works, we must first ignore Dieter Roth’s questioning of the eternal nature of art and either use the methods of conservation to fix an object in a particular state or create replicas of works with a short lifespan. These replicas would repeat the process of decay for eternity.
Schokoladenmeer, 1970
Schokoladenmeer is one of a long series of works in which Dieter Roth used edible and organic materials such as sugar, bread, spices, sausages, cheese, sour milk, mould, excrement and chocolate. For this particular work, Roth shredded the manuscript of an unpublished novel and used the strips of paper and squares of chocolate to make a composition. The result is a sculpture consisting of squares of chocolate piled on top of each other to form numerous columns on a flat base, mixed with the strips of typed paper. In Schokoladenmeer, Roth pushes his ideas about the non-existence of the eternal artwork and about the immutability of art to their logical conclusions. The squares of Lindt chocolate remind us that artistic creation only makes sense if it is connected to life, and that even though all artworks are mutable and transitory by nature, this fact becomes even more obvious when organic materials are used.
Big Sunset (1968), pressing of sausage on cardstock in plastic cover
Literature Sausage (Literaturwurst) (1969), artist’s book of ground copy of Halbzeit by Martin Walser, gelatin, lard, and spices in natural casing
0 notes
Photo
New species of ‘fish lizard,’ a reptile dating back to the dinosaurs, discovered by McGill student | Latest News A McGill University doctoral student and a professor at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany have identified a new species of…
0 notes
Text
Fully Funded PhD Position in Entomology (Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Mating System in Mayflies) in Stuttgart, Germany
Fully Funded PhD Position in Entomology (Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Mating System in Mayflies) in Stuttgart, Germany
PhD Fully Funded Position in Entomology (Functional Morphology and Evolution of the Mating System in Mayflies) in Stuttgart, Germany The State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart (SMNS) is one of the largest natural history museums in Germany, and conducts collection-based research in the areas of systematics, taxonomy, biodiversity and evolution. The SMNS also cooperates closely with the University of Hohenheim in research and academic teaching. As an integrated research museum, the SMNS contributes to a deeper understanding of complex biological relationships and engages actively in science communication. The SMNS strives to be admitted into the Leibniz Association. The project: Mayflies (Insecta:
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Fwd: Job: Stuttgart.BiodiversityMonitoring
Begin forwarded message: > From: [email protected] > Subject: Job: Stuttgart.BiodiversityMonitoring > Date: 18 March 2021 at 06:04:08 GMT > To: [email protected] > > > As part of the "Integrative Taxonomy" initiative of the state of > Baden-Wจนrttemberg, a competence center for biodiversity and integrative > taxonomy (KomBioTa) is being established at the University of Hohenheim > in cooperation with the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History. > > The University of Hohenheimกฏs (UHOH) Faculty of Natural Sciences invites > applications for the position of a > > Full Professor (W3) of Biodiversity Monitoring > > at the Institute of Biology to be filled as soon as possible. > > At the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History (SMNS) the position of the > > Director of the Biodiversity Monitoring Department > > is to be filled. > > The joint appointment by the UHOH and the SMNS will be made according to > the Jจนlich model. Appointment to the University involves an immediate leave > of absence to perform duties at SMNS, where the tasks will predominantly be > carried out. > > The SMNS is one of the most important natural history research museums in > Germany and cooperates closely with the UHOH in research and academic > teaching. The UHOHกฏs Institute of Biology excels in high-level basic > research in organismic biology, among other areas. Together, the two > institutions provide an active and strong research environment for studies > in systematics, biodiversity, and evolution. > > We are seeking a highly motivated scientist (m/f/d) with excellent teamwork > skills and proven research achievements in the field of biodiversity > monitoring at a high international level. Willingness to engage in a > combination of field monitoring and analyze the collection data is > expected. Sound knowledge of ecology, statistics, and taxonomy is required, > ideally combined with expertise in molecular biology. The successful > candidate should be able to teach both in German and English on topics of > biodiversity research, methods of monitoring, and aspects of organismic > biology at UHOH. > > The tasks of the newly established Biodiversity Monitoring Department will > include the expansion and further development of the molecular biology > laboratory as the SMNSกฏs central biodiversity research facility. In > addition, it is expected that the professor will bring in new ideas for > interdepartmental networking and profile raising of research activities at > SMNS and closely cooperate with related disciplines at UHOH. A central task > is to contribute to establishing the Competence Center for Biodiversity and > Integrative Taxonomy at UHOH. > > Requirements for your application are a habilitation or equivalent > scientific achievements including proven experience in university teaching, > in acquiring and managing third-party funded projects as well as > corresponding publication achievements. > > The advertised position is tenured. If appointed as full professor for the > first time, the University of Hohenheim reserves its right to probationary > employment. With equal qualifications, preference will be given to > candidates with disabilities. > > The UHOH and SMNS seek to increase the proportion of women in research and > teaching and therefore strongly encourage female scientists to apply. > > Please attach the following documents to your application: a cover letter, > a statement of your future research interests, a curriculum vitae, > transcripts of records and degree certificates, a list of publications, a > list of third-party funded projects, a teaching record, information on > teaching evaluations as well as three key publications. > > https://ift.tt/38Sb1Ol > > "Warth, Peter" >
via IFTTT
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
corbenfiles
corben
theintentioncraft
what strength freedom are you looking for?
sparkleraven
varnas
cruisethenews
Cruise: The News
anniejclarks
and we're girlfriends