Anthropology.net

Cover via Amazon

June 12^th is the 30^th 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

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

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?

On the lighter side of anthropology…  The Onion takes a satirical look at what outrageously pseudoscientific research into human origins might look like.  Their headline reads:

“Anthropologists Trace Human Origins Back To One Large Goat”
‘Wait, That Can’t Be Right,’ Scientists Say”

In addition to being funny, the article, by contrast, helps show the strict standards of evidence, interdisciplinary collaboration, and peer-review process of actual paleoanthropological research.  Also, our close relationship with other primates is highlighted when one fake Onion researcher observes that “…humans don’t look like goats.”  In other words, don’t expect any presentations on “goat people” at professional anthropological conferences anytime soon.  Enjoy!

- Jay Fancher

Do archaeologists care about the living? Yes, but like all people, we focus on those aspects of a story that are of greatest interest to us. That’s why I have tuned out much of the news coming out of Egypt over the last few weeks. I casually skimmed through articles about the protests, the motivations of the protesters, political ramifications for the region and for me as an American, and even the tragic loss of life. But when Egyptian antiquities were endangered, I began to pay close attention! As a kid, I was inspired by Indiana “It belongs in a museum” Jones. What happens when the museums themselves are threatened? Archaeological materials are one of the many casualties of war and civil unrest, as recently seen in Iraq.

During the Egyptian protests, the Cairo Museum, one of the most significant repositories of artifacts in the world, was raided by looters. Thankfully, it appears that none of the museum’s famed mummies were damaged and, in fact, some protesters defended the museum from looting. Dr. Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt’s Antiquities Department, even ridiculed some looters for stealing souvenirs from the museum gift shop while leaving priceless artifacts untouched. It could have been much worse, since the museum’s collections are truly irreplaceable, and their theft would’ve represented a great loss to humanity.

From the perspective of archaeological preservation, it was a relatively happy ending. Wait…was I really more outraged by the prospect of stolen artifacts and ransacked mummies than hundreds of deaths? Maybe 24-hour global news cycles have desensitized me to death tolls and modern human tragedy. Archaeologists, especially, have been accused of insensitivity toward living people (insert your own joke about archaeologists “preferring their informants dead” here). Sometimes this reputation is deserved – long hours poring over bones and stones in laboratories can dull a person’s sociability. But archaeologists are anthropologists and, as the anthropology.net motto says, we go “Beyond bones & stones.” Archaeologists are as focused on people as any other branch of anthropology. We reconstruct past human behavior from material remains, work with living and descendant communities to better understand the past, and do our best to share archaeology with everyone. Ideally, we go into anthropology because we are human beings who care about our fellow human beings, past and present. And, if our priorities sometimes need adjusting, world events remind us to pay attention to living people and dynamic political situations in addition to mummies.

What aspects of the Egyptian protests have been most meaningful to you?

- Jay Fancher

A hunter-gatherer mother sits stirring a pot of stew over an open fire.  Her young son, eagerly anticipating the evening meal, approaches the pot and asks, “What are we eating?”  “Not sure.  Meat, I think.  Probably some other stuff,” she replies.

Okay, I made that up.  The preceding exchange would never occur between hunter-gatherers.  Or horticulturalists.  Or pastoralists.  Or most of the other subsistence systems that anthropologists study.  The mother, and usually the son, would know what was in the pot because they took part in hunting, gathering, raising, growing, or processing the ingredients.  And that’s pretty much the way it’s been for the vast majority of human history.

So how did we end up here?  An Alabama law firm is suing Taco Bell, claiming that the meat used in Taco Bell’s products does not meet the U.S. Department of Agriculture definition of “beef.”  In fact, the lawsuit alleges that the company’s meat filling is only 35% beef, with the remainder comprised of non-meat ingredients such as water, oats, modified corn starch, maltodextrin, etc.

Taco Bell asserts that their products contain 100% beef.

That’s a big difference in percentages.  Someone’s not telling the truth, or is at least being very disingenuous.  Thankfully, we humans have an established method for evaluating evidence-based claims…SCIENCE!  Yes, I can turn anything into an advertisement for science, and I hope the legal proceedings rely on solid data to resolve this dispute.

From an anthropological perspective, this issue highlights the wide, historically-unprecedented, gap between food production and food consumption in 21st Century developed nations.  We’re all food consumers, far fewer of us are food producers.  The production of our food most often occurs out of sight.  Michael Pollan [In Defense of Food and the film Food, Inc.] argues that much of what we eat is not even food in the strict sense, but rather “food products,” manufactured from food and the “other stuff” I mentioned before.

Many people seem repelled by the idea of unidentifiable “meat.”  But, like our Paleolithic ancestors, we crave fat, salt, and sugar [Martin Jones' Feast: Why Humans Share Food and Richard Wrangham's Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human].  Fast food provides massive quantities of all three for a low, low price.  I had Taco Bell a few days ago, so I understand the allure of quick, cheap calories.  How we got to this point is a fascinating story, well-covered by anthropological research (please see included links and share your own in the comments).  Since we are so removed from the production of our own food products, I think it’s reasonable for consumers to know what’s in the pot – even if laboratory analysis is required to figure out the ingredients.  What do you think?

- Jay Fancher

Do you believe in evolution?  Forty percent of Americans don’t (more on that later).  A student asked me this question on day one of the first introductory anthropology class I ever taught.  I believe that any difficult-to-answer question is a good one, and this one baffled me with its simplicity.

Short answer: yes, I believe in evolution…but why was a modern college student in the United States asking me this?  The student was intelligent, curious, and friendly.  If anyone was naive, it was me for not expecting the question.  He’d simply been shaped by our culture to see evolution as a divisive matter of public opinion – and he wanted to know where I stood on the issue.  It would have been easiest to take his question at face value, answer yes, and move on to discussing the details of human evolution.  But, like so many idealistic teachers, I grasped the “teachable moment” and ran with it (annoying the many students who already believed in evolution and wanted to get into the good stuff):

• Science is an empirical method that (at least ideally) is not based on belief.  All scientific conclusions are tentative.  Scientific knowledge is evidence-based, ever-growing, and self-correcting since new or contrary evidence can be discovered at any time.  When asked what evidence would convince him that evolution was false, biologist J.B.S. Haldane remarked “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.”  Like all scientifically-testable ideas, evolution is falsifiable.  If rabbit fossils are found in Precambrian layers of rock (millions of years too early), I’ll be happy to explore alternative theories!
• There is also a major difference between the general and scientific uses of the word theory.  In everyday usage, theory means a guess or speculation.  In science, a hypothesis does not rise to the level of a theory without overwhelming evidence and explanatory power.  Anti-evolutionists dismiss evolution as “just a theory,” but scientifically-speaking, this is a gracious compliment.  Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has survived 150 years of rigorous challenges in every field from geology to genetics.
• Evolution may be politically, culturally, and emotionally controversial.  In the 19th Century, Darwin’s “dangerous idea” caused spiritual crises for many.  However, in the 21st Century, biological evolution is not scientifically controversial.  It’s an understatement to say that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
• Finally, scientific inquiry has revealed other phenomena that I “believe” in.  I believe in a round earth, though my senses tell me it’s flat.  I believe that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.  I believe in sexual reproduction, not the stork theory of baby origins.  I believe in particles like quarks, though I can’t see them directly.  And I do believe in evolution.

That’s a pretty long preamble, and one that most of my students had heard in middle school or high school biology classes.  Still, I thought “Do you believe in evolution?” deserved a thoughtful answer.  These days, I might answer “Yes.  Please read Jerry Coyne‘s Why Evolution is True” to save time.  After that, we were able to move into the actual evidence for evolution, all the cool hominid skulls, etc.

Assuming that Precambrian rabbits, or comparable out-of-place fossils, aren’t found anytime soon, the reality of evolution has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  So, it’s no longer necessary for anthropologists to summarize the scientific method before discussing human evolution, right?  Unfortunately, in the United States, evolution is still presented as if it was a political issue and, in some cases, it does enter the political arena (e.g., school board decisions).  Informed people can have differences of opinion over political issues.  In fact, one thing that ties Americans together is the core belief that political issues should be decided democratically.  But evolution is a scientific theory, subject to empirical evidence, not public opinion…and that may be a good thing.

Gallup poll results from December 17, 2010 show that 40% of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”  Make no mistake, the last 10,000 years have been a fascinating part of the human story – but they’re not the whole story!  Poll results like these make me feel both discouraged and reflective.  How is this possible in a developed country with educational opportunities like ours?  What can I do to better explain the human past (ALL of it)?  There is some truth to the argument that more and better education would help.  The same Gallup poll divides anti-evolution respondents by education level:

Gallup Poll on Evolution vs. Education

So education helps, but education alone cannot overcome the cultural/religious impediments that prevent more widespread understanding of biological evolution in the U.S.  Undoubtedly, many of the survey respondents took biology or anthropology as part of their education and still hold the belief that humans are new and separate from all other forms of animal life.  One hopeful sign is that 40% is the lowest percentage of “creationists” in Gallup’s history of asking this question – down from a high of 47% in 1993 and 1999.  There will probably always be a percentage of the population that is beyond the reach of evidence, especially with an emotionally-charged subject like evolution (after all, no one is freaking out about teaching gravity in public schools).

For cultural and historical reasons too numerous to go into here, Americans are not yet ready to embrace Darwin’s grand view of life – a view that has become so much grander and more elegant over the last 150 years.  It might take another 150 years for the culture to catch up with the science.  Those of us who love the science of humanity will keep doing our part to share the evidence for evolution and its role in shaping our species.

Do you believe in evolution?

I love anthropology and, since you’re taking the time to read this, you probably don’t hate it.  When we love something, we want to share our enthusiasm for it with others.  Sharing my passion for the scientific study of humankind has been a driving goal for the past 15 years.  As a result, I ask everyone – anthropologists, students, teachers, writers – for their opinion about what makes good popular science writing.

A few years ago, I had an opportunity to ask that question of Jane Goodall, one of the most successful popularizers of anthropology and primatology ever (please see www.janegoodall.org for more about her life and work).  Dr. Goodall graciously offered three pieces of advice:

1. Get your facts straight.
2. Listen.  Present all sides, particularly of contentious issues.
3. Tell a good story.

The first point about getting your facts straight is obviously important in all forms of communication.  It’s especially critical when writing for the internet, where anyone can say anything.  Bloggers, in particular, are responsible for policing themselves, and each other.  Factual accuracy is the basis of trust.  If an author makes frequent errors, you have good reason to question their trustworthiness and conclusions.  On the other hand, an author with a record of straight facts has earned some level of trust.  I hope to gradually earn your trust with future posts here.  If I get a fact wrong, I know I’m going to hear about it in the comments section – that’s a strong incentive to get it right!

Regarding the second point, I can think of at least two practical reasons that writers should be good listeners:

1. Listening helps ensure fairness in addition to accuracy.
2. Understanding opposing viewpoints helps a writer construct stronger arguments.  Of course, not all contentious issues have equal and opposite sides (evolution vs. intelligent design, for example), but many do, and anthropological authors gain credibility by covering multiple perspectives.  This doesn’t mean that we can’t “tell it like it is,” we just have to show that we’ve evaluated other possibilities before forming conclusions.
3. The third point, telling a good story, requires a special kind of person able to bridge the gap between fact and narrative.  Scientific researchers are often not the best communicators of their own research.  We’re fascinated by our own sub-specialties and research questions, but intimidated by the task of translating it into something that anyone else might possibly want to read.  People like Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, and Jane Goodall excelled as both scholars and popularizers – which is why I was excited to ask Dr. Goodall for her advice, and so thankful for her answers.

These are just some ideas off the top of my head.  What about you?  What would you add to these three points?  Whether you’re a writer, a reader, or both, what do you look for in good popular anthropological (and general science) writing?