Controversy has smouldered and flared over the precise status
of the status of the tales of Stupi for longer than any of us
may care to remember.
Hagan Carrytorlet, followed later by Dumpis Manacan (and later
still by Count Mikelard, though he is but a shadow), has devoted
his life to a singlehanded attempt to push this body of stories
to the margins of knowledge, arguing that they have nothing to
teach us today. Others hold that, irrespective of their standing
in history, the tales have a great deal to tell us about the flaw
hidden deep within the psyche of our species, about which we should
be well acquainted, in case it should ever find its way to the
surface again.
Rather than address this point, Carrytorlet and his school concentrate
on an obsessive questioning of the detail and provenence of the
stories. They have even made clumsy attempts to fabricate their
own tales in an attempt to discredit academics and universities
who are not of their persuasion. Their latest attempt was broken
within weeks when analysis of their ink in the 'discovery' showed
evidence of modernity. Despite this clumsy failure, they combine
to challenge the status, not only of the tales of Stupi, but also
the facts relating to the historic record.
In view of their persistent attacks, we are obliged to return
to the archaeological facts: it is regrettable that due to the
extreme scepticism of one overly influential academic, we are
obliged to direct our energies into establishing the plain facts
of the case and we apologise to the many intelligent students
for whom this is, if you will excuse the expression, ancient history.
It is generally agreed (with the obvious exception) that Stupi
is an acronym for the Stratum of Toxic Uranium Pollution Infill,
which refers to a relatively recent layer that is detectable in
many parts of the geo-archaeological record. Hagan Carrytorlet
makes much of the fact that the record is patchy. He argues shrilly
that it would be utterly illogical that the toxicity evidence
should be concentrated in the very areas where the people of the
time are thought to have made their settlements. In putting forward
this argument, it is clear that Carrytorlet and his school have
not understood the essential nature of Stupi itself.
It is in this denial that he bases his second criticism - in
what he terms the dualistic nature of the case. On the one hand
( he says) there is the fossil record of a stage of human development,
and on the other, a linguistic record, part written, part spoken.
What relationships (he asks) can we infer from these two facts,
one drawn from physics and the other from human culture? How can
they possibly be reconciled?
We hold that it is precisely in the over emphasis of the difference
of physics and psychology that the problems of Stupi arose. Which
is not (as HC would try to make out) to repeat the elementary
mistake of those who reduce psychology to physics or physics to
psychology. We will not be devoting valuable headspace that intellectual
hall of mirrors.
The essence of the debate is that Carrytorlet cannot accept that
the tales of Stupi reflect in some way - whether literally or
figuratively - a condition that humans once fell into, and against
which we must forever be on our guard.
It matters not a scrap to this point of view that there is a
multipicity of tales, or that they come in many different versions.
These are merely the spectral light refracted through the words
of the storytellers and writers who conserved the truth to the
best of their ability. It matters not that the central tale, the
Healer of Stupi, disappeared for generations, only to turn up
on a computer disk in a hospital ( or as some say a rural health
centre) record. It matters not that the doings of the people seem
so illogical (the tale of the Great Slaughter is often quoted
in this regard) that no rational being could possibly give credit
to them.
In the end, the facts speak for themselves. The stories exist,
and they owe their existence to the human mind. Whether they are
a reflection of a reality that once existed, related to the archaeological
and paleontological record or whether even (to grant Carrytorlet
his fullest credibility for the sake of argument) they are a product
of one or several human fantasies - it matters not. I speak as
one who has devoted his life to these matters. They stand before
us as a warning.
|
