Applying to Grad School in Anthropology- Where will we go?
My graduate applications–probably like many of yours– are almost completely submitted by now. I spent the fall traveling around the east coast and filling out the same information on similar looking websites for hours on end. I poured over my personal statement line by line until I could recite it by heart and my girlfriend almost stabbed me. I met with professors, teasing myself with ideas of where I might end up next year.
I’m approaching my last semester as an undergraduate at Binghamton University, and if you haven’t guessed it by the context of this blog already, my envelopes were addressed to graduate schools of anthropology.
Now that I have almost finished paying a small fortune in application fees to play a lottery, I have had the time to start to catch up on some reading. While prospective graduate students might feel pessimistic about waiting to hear back about acceptances, what I’ve been skimming has sobered me up a little bit from my fall daydreams of excavations in faraway places.
I found myself searching the web reminding myself how as an anthropologist you should never expect to ever really get hired by a university. Not to say that I learned anything new.
There aren’t a lot of tenure track positions. You’re just going to have a lot of debt. It will take you a literal lifetime to pay back your loans. You’re going to be an adjunct professor and be paid less than a graduate student on a fellowship. Just don’t expect to work in academia.
That is a lot of negativity, but everyone has heard something similar. The most positive remark I hear about careers in academia is that the job market just can’t get any worse. Surely by the time I finish my graduate work in a decade things will have turned around some, right?
For some reason like many others I am not dissuaded or in the least bit fazed by the outlook, at least at this stage in my aspirations. It is important to note I recognize that I am still in my naïve undergraduate phase. I hear in the long years of graduate school it becomes easier to get disillusioned. For now I am content. Call it unrealistic, but I’ll work my hardest and keep my fingers crossed.
I feel like most of my peers too have their eyes on the prize of a tenure track position, some time down the road. They too probably brush off knowing that very specific job listings for such positions receive hundreds of applications.
Knowing the odds, I am very curious what percentage of individuals starting work on a PhD have the intention of working somewhere other than a university. Are there a lot of you out there?
How many of you have thought about other applications of highly specialized degrees? If in eight years I am an expert on Neandertal lithic industries in southwest Belarus—as a random example– what jobs are most likely for me? Cultural resource management? Museum work?
I suppose it is something I can start thinking about, assuming I get in somewhere. If I am accepted I will have a solid seven years to mull over future directions, which should be sufficient time. Right now I am looking forward to it.
By Matthew Magnani
Are YOU a Neandertal?
In 2010 the draft genome for Neandertals was released by Svante Pääbo and colleagues. It was reported that European and Asian populations are between 1-4% Neandertal—but what percentage Neandertal are you?
The company known as 23andMe recently released an analysis that claims to answer precisely this question. While personal genome sequencing has not yet hit the mainstream market, 23andMe looks at SNPs, or variations in single nucleotide pairs. Through a comparison between your SNPs and those found in the Neandertal genome draft, for a couple hundred dollars you will be given a percentage. The service has been given the name “Neanderthal Ancestry Estimator.”
Researcher extracts DNA from a Neandertal specimen
Computational biologist Eric Durand developed the project, and has previously worked on both the Neandertal genome draft and Denisova genetics.
I encourage you to take a look at an outline of the methodology, online in a white paper. Are we really at the point where a private company can tell us a likely percentage of our Neandertal ancestry for $207? I’ll let you be the judge.
By Matthew Magnani
Microwear Analysis at Dmanisi
This month in the Journal of Human Evolution, a new study on the teeth of the Dmanisi Homo erectus has been published. A site in the Republic of Georgia, Dmanisi has yielded a vast quantity of hominin fossils dating to approximately 1.8 million years ago—even an elderly individual without teeth. The discovered crania are remarkably well-preserved, and have given scientists the ability to look at our evolutionary history with higher resolution.
Based on the skeletal remains, how can we ascertain specifics about hominin diet? For this particular study, researchers used microwear analysis on two molars from Dmanisi. Microwear analysis observes the patterning left on teeth by components of specific diets. As one example, tough silicates in plants leave identifiable traces, as do other silica-based sands that end up being chewed.
Comparisons in wear patterns were made with Dmanisi H. erectus and African H. erectus as well as the genus Australopithecus and earlier Homo, to get an idea of where the Dmanisi hominins fit in on the spectrum of microwear diagnostic traits. These diagnostic traits include heterogeneity of the tooth surface, as well as complexity in the roughness of the tooth surface. To give you an idea of general evolutionary trends, Australopithecines typically had larger teeth and thicker enamel to break down tougher, lower quality foods. As later Homo emerged, teeth tended to get smaller and enamel thinner.
The results indicated that the molars of Dmanisi Homo erectus were very similar to African Homo erectus in general. However, there were also characteristics found to be consistent with other earlier hominin species. Overall the authors cautioned against drawing conclusions with such a small number of teeth, saying that meaningful statistical results are unattainable based on the sample size.
According to authors, the wear patterns on the Dmanisi teeth are indicative of hominins that exploited a range of foods. It seems then that versatility and not specialization is what defines H. erectus in both Africa and Europe. The ability to take advantage of a larger resource base is no doubt one of the factors that allowed the first hominins to spread out across such an expansive area.
By Matthew Magnani
Pontzer, H., Scott, J.R., Lordkipanidze, D., Ungar, P.S. 2011.“Dental microwear texture analysis and diet in the Dmanisi hominins.” Journal of Human Evolution 61:683-687.
Keeping up with the Hominin
“Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).”
A lot had happened this year with hominin research and some would redefine conventional understandings of this group. Below is a list of new studies that came out this year that I find quite interesting on hominin. Read up so you can show off in class with your knowledge of current hominin research. You know, just so you can make sure that your adjunct is really paying attention of what he/she is doing instead of begrudgingly teaching a class because he/she has to. Or maybe you have a geeky classmate you want to impress. Or if you’re like me, you just wanna be the smartest in class because Asian Fail is not an option. So, enjoy … and if they question you, tell them I said so.
Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus
- Male philopatry and female dispersal in both A. africanus and P. robustus. Is this a strategy to prevent inbreeding and mate choice by females? Ancient Hominid Males Stayed Home While Females Roamed, Study Finds
Paranthropus boisei
- Seems like we’ll have to re-evaluate P. boisei‘s nickname, “Nutcracker Man”. Recent study showed that P. boisei didn’t eat nuts but instead used its big teeth to chew on grasses and sedges. No nuts for ‘Nutcracker Man’: Early human relative apparently chewed grass instead
Homo erectus
- H. erectus were the first to controlled fire but it wasn’t just used for warmth. New study shows that H. erectus were the first to cook their food (with fire) and process their food with tools. Homo Erectus Processed Food Like Humans, Harvard Scientists Say
- Stone artifacts, mostly flakes from stone tools, from the Dmanisi site in Georgia (the country, not the state) might suggests that H. erectus evolved outside of Africa. However, no conclusive evidence can be made due to the poor conditions of fossils found near these artifacts. Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought
- H. erectus reached South Asia earlier than previously thought, between 1.5 to 1 million years ago according to Acheulean tools. Go east, ancient tool makers
- Findings from Solo River Terrace (SoRT) in Indonesia shows that H. erectus never coexisted with H. sapiens. Using three dating techniques: U-series, Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) and argon-argon, scientists found H. erectus went extinct between 143,000 to 550,000 years ago. H. sapiens are thought to reached Indonesia about 40,000 years ago. Human Ancestor Older Than Previously Thought; Finding Offers New Insights Into Evolution
Homo neanderthalensis
- Neandertals probably died off because there were too many early humans to compete with. According to a statistical analysis, the Périgord region of southwestern France has the highest concentration of Neandertals and early humans. The ratio between Neandertal to early human was 1 to 10. There were just too many humans for Neanderthals to survive
- Mousterian culture might have lasted longer than previously thought and Neandertals might have spread as far as northern Russia in the mountains of Polar Urals, near the Arctic Circle. Last Neanderthals Near the Arctic Circle?
- Neandertals were predominantly right-handed, according to their teeth. Also, humans have been predominantly right-handed for at least 500,000 years. Neanderthal ancestors were mostly right-handed
Homo floresiensis (the Hobbits)
- The debate whether H. floresiensis is a separate species or just microcephalic H. sapiens continues on. New study shows that the measurement of the Hobbit skull is within the range of microcephalic H. sapiens. Taking the measure of a hobbit
 |
| From left to right: Homo floresiensis (LB1) and Homo sapiens. |
Homo sapiens (early and modern humans)
- Early humans have been playing hanky panky with Neandertals and possibly the Denisovans. Proof? A toe bone and its DNA. Stone Age toe could redraw human family tree
- A particular segment of our X-chromosome were inherited from Neandertals. This supports the hypothesis that early humans interbred with Neandertal. However, only non-African humans have this segment. Confirmed: All non-African people are part Neanderthal
- Might not be a conscious decision, but apparently early humans that left Africa interbred with Neandertal to protect themselves against diseases. This is probably an unintended result more than an active thought process. First modern humans protected themselves against disease after leaving Africa by ‘interbreeding with Neanderthals’
*Bouchra child, Homo sapiens*
- Dr. Harold Dribble and his team found the skull of “world’s oldest human child” dated around 108,000 years old in Morocco and nicknamed it Bouchra. The boy died when he was 8 years old. This specimen has not been described in any scientific paper so watch out for it soon. World’s Oldest Child Found in Morocco
Dopamine & Anticipating Rewards
I am now two-thirds done with my psychiatry rotation. It has been a fascinating experience so far. I’ve seen the gamut of psychiatric cases, depressed people who cut their necks through and through, to florid schizophrenics worried that the Hiroshima bomb will go off any moment. The treatment of psychiatric conditions like depression or schizophrenia often revolves around regulating monoamine neurotransmitters like serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.
Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter that functions in a lot of behaviors and reactions, such as movement, lactation, aggression, fear, etc. In diseases like Parkinson, dopamine levels lower and movement becomes uncontrolled. In other diseases like schizophrenia, either dopamine levels are high or response to dopamine is higher, and paranoia & hallucinations manifest. Treating schizophrenia involves blocking dopamine receptors. As you can imagine, a common side effect of antipsychotics is movement disorders — or Parkinsonism.
So why am I on this neuropsychiatric kick on an anthropology blog? Our cultural and behavioral predisopostions ultimately boil down to chemicals in our brain interacting and stimulating other areas. One of the most important functions of dopamine is in the reward system of the brain, an area called the nucleus accumbens that primes pleasurable behavior to repeat, such as sex, eating, and drugs.
In this video, Robert Sapolsky of Stanford Neurology makes the distinction between how dopamine levels rise in the anticipation of pleasure and not as a response to pleasure. I especially like that comment he made regarding reward and religion, “There’s no monkey out there willing to lever press because St. Peter is down the line.”
Boost your Immune System: Breed with an Extinct Human Species
Last week at the Royal Society in London, research was presented suggesting that Neandertals not only interbred with H. sapiens sapiens, but that their genes were helpful to modern people moving out of Africa.
This pioneering study was led by Peter Parham of Stanford University, and was only possible after the draft genome of H. neanderthalensis was published. The researchers looked at human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), genes important to the functioning of the immune system.
Different regions of the world are known to have unique HLAs, because different variations create specific disease resistances. It would have been advantageous for the earliest modern humans to breed with a species (or subspecies) already adapted to living in a different climate. Moderns could have picked up helpful genes that were already in existence from Neandertal populations, which would have possibly allowed their populations to expand more rapidly. Why wait for random mutation when you can interbreed with a people already successfully adapted to an area?
Neandertal Child Reconstruction
While only approximately 6% of the modern European genome was contributed from earlier hominins, around half of specific HLAs can be attributed to these earlier forms of people. As a form of further substantiation, Europeans have HLA variations present within the Neandertal genome not found in Africans. Interestingly, Asian populations today also have a variation not present anywhere else, which could indicate Denisovan (mystery Siberian hominin) admixture.
As if the draft sequence showing interbreeding was not enough last year– this study has raised the bar on the type of information we can hope to glean from looking at ancient DNA. There was a time when archaeology and anatomy were the only windows we had into our ancestral relatives. It will be exciting to see what is uncovered next.
By Matthew Magnani
Happy Birthday Indy!
Cover via Amazon
June 12th is the 30th anniversary of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones remains the world’s most famous archaeologist. How many real-life archaeologists are household names? In honor of Indy‘s birthday, I’m posting a revised excerpt of an essay I wrote for the Society for American Archaeology’s Archaeology for the Public website several years ago (see this link for the complete version):
In 1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark set the tone for virtually every action blockbuster that has been produced since, and it is easily the most well-known fictional film with archaeological content. Its sequels Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) were also very commercially successful. Despite the differences I’ve outlined (and there are many more), a large segment of the general public associates archaeology with the now legendary character of Indiana Jones. When people find out you’re an archaeologist, their first question is often “Is it really like Indiana Jones?” As a result, Indy gets a lot of criticism from professionals who get tired of explaining that archaeology is rewarding, is often full of adventure and excitement, but it’s not very much like Indiana Jones. But archaeologists and educators can use the popularity of the Indiana Jones movies to their advantage. These films, by depicting what archaeology isn’t, provide an entertaining opportunity for teachers and students to make comparisons and discuss what archaeology is.
Many of us, especially children and adolescents, are first exposed to the field of archaeology by viewing fictional adventurers like Indiana Jones. Personally, I first heard the word archaeology when I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark as a kid. While sitting in that darkened theater, I was so impressed by Indy’s intelligence and determination that I resolved to go to the school library and read more about this mysterious thing called archaeology. Despite my initial disappointment that archaeologists didn’t carry bullwhips, I quickly became fascinated with real archaeology. That was 30 years ago and I’m still fascinated. The Indy movies don’t accurately reflect archaeology, but their popularity has the potential to spark public interest in finding out more about archaeology – the facts behind the fiction. The archaeologists of tomorrow might very well be sitting at home or in class watching Raiders of the Lost Ark today. In that sense, Indiana Jones is a hero to movie-goers, educators, and archaeologists alike.
So I argued then, and still believe, that Indiana Jones can help popularize real archaeology. Evidently, the Archaeological Institute of America shares this belief since Harrison Ford is a member of their governing board. What do you think? Is Indiana Jones good for archaeology? Please share your thoughts and memories of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the comments.
- Jay Fancher
Evolution by Fire
For many years, the use of fire has been central to the discussion of human evolution. When was fire first controlled, and when was it first actually made by man? These are questions that rise again and again, but with scant early proof. Recently in the online journal Fire Ecology, an environmental scientist discusses what could be the earliest regular source of fire for our earliest ancestors (or potential ancestors).
Maybe an unconventional source for speculation on human origins, Michael Medler is an associate professor of environmental science at Western Washington University. His paper can be broken into two sections, one based on reasonable observations in his specialty, and the other of speculation outside of his field (which in all fairness, the author sort of points out himself).
For millions of years in the African Rift Valley, volcanic activity went through periods of relative stability. Early groups of hominins going back millions of years would have been had access to lava flows, and in turn the benefits of heat and fire. Could it have been here that the earliest hominins started to add fuel to keep a fire going, keeping close to it for protection or warmth?
Homo erectus, a species that likely moved out of Africa aided by fire.
Maybe– but as Medler points out it is impossible to tell archaeologically. It is difficult enough for experts to determine fire usage in later instances, let alone millions of years ago in Africa. If the earliest fire-users were in close proximity to lava flows, it is possible that the evidence would never be found. If charred bones turn up, who is to say that they were not burned by a natural fire? For now, this type of theory will remain almost strictly without archaeological evidence based simply on the principle of poor preservation.
However, the author states that there can be strong circumstantial evidence in support of his claims. If times of volcanic activity coincide with the presence of hominin species, this could perhaps be considered suggestive. As one example, Medler notes a period consistent with the emergence of Homo erectus. Before 1.8 million years ago, there was a time of volcanic activity that was stable for about 200,000 years. This period overlaps with both the appearance of Homo erectus and their dispersal out of Africa—where knowledge of fire would have been an important factor.
There were many parts of Medler’s paper that had me questioning its integrity, namely the section on the use of tools. While the sections that had me shaking my head were under the subheading “speculations and just so stories” I do not think this excuses him from their inclusion. He writes– without citation—-about how hand axes would have been more useful in cutting fuel than meat. Where he got this information, I’m not really positive.
While this article does not seem to have been done in a circle of paleoanthropologists, the core ideas should get you thinking. Looking at volcanoes as a potential source of fire is intriguing, mainly because of the consistency with which they are present historically. Perhaps the next paper will have an anthropologist as a co-author.
By Matthew Magnani
Medler, M.J. 2011. Speculations about the effects of fire and lava flows on human evolution. Fire Ecology 7(1): 13-23. doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0701013
The Anthropology of War
In light of the recent U.S. intervention in Libya, Scott Atran has a new post on the anthropology of war at huffingtonpost.com. Despite human attempts to conduct war in a calculated manner, he concludes that the decision to go to war is never completely rational. That is, war is more an emotional matter of status and pride, sacred values, and defining “who we are,” than a strategic cost-benefit analysis. To support this, Atran cites his recent National Science Foundation- and Defense Department-funded research with survey participants from Israel, Nigeria, and the U.S. Results suggest that variables such as “moral outrage” are extremely difficult to quantify, but respondents know when culturally-defined rules have been broken. In cases where sacred values are violated, Atran argues, we are motivated to violent action whether or not such action makes rational sense.
Whether or not you agree with Scott Atran’s conclusions, his post is thought-provoking and well worth reading. Chris Hedges covers similar ground in his 2002 book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Enjoy, and please share your thoughts on this topic in the comments below.
- Jay Fancher
Anthropocene Now?
By Jay Fancher
Oil transformed Dubai in the 1970s. The city now boasts the world's tallest building, giant malls, and some two million residents, who depend on desalinated seawater and air-conditioning—and thus on cheap energy—to live in the Arabian desert. (Credit: Jens Neumann/Edgar Rodtmann/NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, science has a way of deflating human conceits. Anthropology reveals that humans are special – just not for many of the reasons proposed throughout our history. Thanks to biology, astronomy, and geology, we now know that:
- Modern humans are one species among many, not the pinnacle of all creation.
- We’re not the center of the universe; our planet orbits a fairly average star.
- We haven’t been around since the beginning of time – far from it.
On a 4.5-billion-year-old planet, with a 3.5-billion-year history of life, anatomically-modern Homo sapiens only go back about 200,000 years. We’re brand new, a tiny blip on the geologic time scale! Despite this, a new National Geographic article explores the possibility that the “Anthropocene” may have already begun. Here is a brief excerpt:
Enter the Anthropocene—Age of Man It’s a new name for a new geologic epoch—one defined by our own massive impact on the planet. That mark will endure in the geologic record long after our cities have crumbled…Probably the most obvious way humans are altering the planet is by building cities, which are essentially vast stretches of man-made materials—steel, glass, concrete, and brick. But it turns out most cities are not good candidates for long-term preservation, for the simple reason that they’re built on land, and on land the forces of erosion tend to win out over those of sedimentation.
The author of the article, Elizabeth Kolbert, graciously agreed to an interview with Anthropology.net. The text of our discussion, conducted via e-mail, follows:
Fancher: The greatest strength of anthropology is its all-encompassing view of humanity. We’re proud of this breadth, frequently describing our work as the study of all people, in all times, and all places. But, as you state in your article, stratigraphers take an extremely long view – the entire 4.5-billion-year history of Earth. How can students of the human past benefit from this geological perspective?
Kolbert: I’m not sure I have a good answer for this. As all anthropologists know, we are a young species. So human history doesn’t tell us much about earth history. What is particularly alarming about a lot of recent discoveries in geology is that you have to go way, way back – i.e., tens of millions of years – to find analogues for some of the things we are doing today, like, for example, acidifying the oceans.
Fancher: I was surprised to read that our proudest technological achievements might not be easy to recognize in the geological record. It’s humbling to think that urban centers will ultimately be as fleeting in the geological record as short-term hunter-gatherer camp sites are in the archaeological record. Despite our human desire to leave huge, everlasting monuments, is it better not to be noticed in the geological record?
Kolbert: Well, it’s not clear that we will be noticed, because it’s not clear there’s going to be anything around to notice us. But we will be noticeable. And certainly from the standpoint of the other organisms on earth, it would be a lot better if our impact were not so obvious.
Fancher: Some issues of scientific classification appear to have little practical relevance. For example, the debate over whether Pluto qualifies as a planet or not. In your article, Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen concludes that the value of the Anthropocene classification goes far beyond textbook revisions. Can you elaborate on the meaning of the Anthropocene?
Kolbert: Officially, we live in the Holocene, or “wholly recent” epoch. The Anthropocene translates basically as the man-made epoch. It’s an acknowledgment that humans, rather than what are sometimes quaintly called “the great forces of nature,” have become the driving force on the planet.
Fancher: How might recognition of a geological epoch called the Anthropocene influence human behavior?
Kolbert: I end the piece with a quote from Paul Crutzen, the Nobelist who coined the term. Crutzen says, “What I hope is that the term ‘Anthropocene’ will be a warning to the world.” I think what he means by that is: we are now in the driver’s seat. Unfortunately, we don’t really know how to operate the vehicle. So we’d better think about what we’re doing very carefully.
Many thanks to Elizabeth Kolbert for writing such a thought-provoking article, and for agreeing to this interview. Enter the Anthropocene – Age of Man is part of National Geographic magazine’s year-long coverage of the global human population reaching 7 billion.
What do you think about the possibility of a geological epoch called the Anthropocene?
