Anthropology.net

About 9 months ago, I shared some news of language extinction and the conservation efforts of K. David Harrison and David Anderson. My coverage was far from a thorough treatment of the subject, partially because I know little about the problem and the ways to remedy it. Fast forward to today, where I come across this video posted by Simon Greenhill on his blog HENRY.

The video is an interview of well spoken linguistic anthropologist K. David Harrison, by host Mark Molaro. In the video, David touches on many aspects, such as ownership of a language and what he considers ‘the greatest conservation challenge’ of humans. For anyone interested in the subject, I recommend you check out this 26 minute interview. Harrison integrates cultural issues as well as the importance of knowledge locked in unknown languages that can be useful to other disciplines such as botanists and zoologists.

Ownership of a language is a critical concept to understand. Speakers of widely spoken languages such as English, French, Chinese, Spanish, may not consider much ownership to their language. But to those who are one of the few speakers of a dying language, such as Chulym where only 30 or so speakers are alive, feel more attached to their language — it is something they identify with.

Harrison also outlines ‘the greatest conservation challenge’ of humans. See, every 2 weeks or so a language dies off. In contrast, species are going extinct at a much slower rate and yet a monumental conservation effort is put into saving this from happening. But studying, saving and/or curating languages aren’t given the same dedication as ecological or archaeological conservation. It is ironic that language, perhaps the most complex monument to human genius, has been ignored in our efforts to conserve the rest of the world.

Support is required from outside to conserve language, and with that a change in the ways we approach language is needed. Harrison suggests that while curating a language is critical to the conservation, understanding the folk taxonomy, a.k.a. the folksonomy, is also imperative. He brings up examples of different single word terms to refer to different reindeer in some Siberian languages. When translated, these single words unravel into elaborate, information packed phrases. He uses that to explain how often times there is a lot of local knowledge hidden lesser spoken language, that can span millennia. Harrison advocates that other researchers entertain the possibility that languages are an untapped resource for knowledge.

But to do that, a restructuring of how we consider discovery is needed. We, as academics, are largely stuck in this colonial paradigm of how discovery is approached. Many zoologists, botanists, even anthropologists and archaeologists discover new things without absorbing native knowledge. It is an awfully imperial way of looking about it, if Western culture doesn’t know about it the rest of the world never know about it! But who’s to say local peoples didn’t know about a certain plant or animal for ages prior to the “Western discovery”? We need people to acknowledge the vast body of knowledge out there, locked in indigenous, endangered languages.

Harrison wraps up his talk emphasizing how language is an infinite system, and I couldn’t agree with him more. He’s put particular consideration on local knowledge, but there is also a lot of knowledge that can be extracted from language — such as human migrations, which will have gaping holes if languages are allowed to erode at the rates they are now.

An new article in press, to be published in the Journal of Human Evolution will announce new hominin remains from Uzbekistan. The remains were actually found five years ago, and are the first hominin findings from the country in over 65 years! The remains were discovered in two Middle Paleolithic sites, the Obi-Rakhmat Grotto and Anghilak Cave. From the abstract,

“The material from Obi-Rakhmat (OR-1), a subadult represented by part of a permanent maxillary dentition and a fragmentary cranium, expresses a relatively Neandertal-like dentition coupled with more ambiguous cranial anatomy. The remains from Anghilak Cave include a non-diagnostic, diminutive right fifth metatarsal (AH-1). These findings are important additions to the Central Asia hominin fossil record.”

The paper, “New hominin remains from Uzbekistan,” is pretty straightforward. Obi-Rakhmat Grotto sits just west of the Kyrgyzstan border. It is a very rich in archaeology… lots of elongated Levallois blade blanks have been recovered. There is also a large zooarchaeological record, which shows taphonomic modification by humans, i.e. cut-marks, burning, etc.

Obi-Rakhmat deposits have been dated with AMS radiocarbon dating of charcoal, U-series dating of travertines, and electron spin resonance (ESR) on ungulate teeth. The radiocarbon dates exceeded the limits of the method, the U-series suggests the deposits are anywhere from 70,000–100,000 years old. ESR from the top strata date to 57,000–73,000 years old, while the bottom strata is dated to be 87,000 years old. The human remains from Obi-Rakhmat are represented by 6 isolated permanent maxillary teeth and over 120 crania fragments. Here are photos of the human remains from Ob-Rakhmat:

Obi-Rakhmat has been studied for over 45 years, where Anghilak Cave is a more recent discovery. There aren’t as many Levallois debitage in Anghilak as Obi-Rakhmat. According to the authors, the archaeology of Anghilak appears to be analogous to those of Kunji Cave, Iran (a Paleolithic site with small retouched tools). Preliminary radiocarbon dates from Anghilak suggest it is somewhere between 43,900-38,100 years old. Only one human remain was recovered from Anghilak, a metatarsal picture below:

The Obi-Rakhmat remains are thought to be single child, aged 9-12 years old, represented by the specimen name OR-1. The morphology of OR-1 dentition suggest this kid was a Neandertal. The first molar exhibits a skewed occlusal surface, the premolars exhibit some Neandertal traits. The cranial fragments, such as the relatively thick parietal of OR-1 further suggest that it was a Neandertal. Some other cranial fragments, such as the presence of a foramen in the parietal are seen in at least 37% of modern human. Neandertals, such as Amud 1, Shanidar 1, Tabun 1, Skhul 4, 5, and 9 lack such a foramen.

Making inferences from the temporal fragments of OR-1, the authors suggest that the external acoustic meatus of OR-1 is much lower, a trait seen in modern humans as well… but looking at the morphology of the inner ear, OR-1 has a small and wide posterior semicircular canal, a trait seen in Neandertals. The metatarsal from Anghilak, AH-1, isn’t representative enough to determine a species nor age — all we can tell is that it is human.

In general this description of the remains sound a lot like Teshik-Tash. The hominin remains from Teshik-Tash, the only other site in Uzbekistan yielding hominin fossils, are just as fragmentary and mixed in traits as OR-1. A recent genetic study of the Teshik-Tash remains suggest it was Neandertal, and I’m thinking that OR-1 and AH-1, if excavated under sterile conditions, may also need genetic analysis to confirm.

GLANTZ, M., VIOLA, B., WRINN, P., CHIKISHEVA, T., DEREVIANKO, A., KRIVOSHAPKIN, A., ISLAMOV, U., SULEIMANOV, R., RITZMAN, T. (2008). New hominin remains from Uzbekistan. Journal of Human Evolution DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.12.007