Ann Gibbons, has a piece in today’s Science where she writes of the troubles the field faces,
“In the fall of 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott proclaimed that his state didn’t need any more anthropologists, and that public money would be better spent educating scientists. Then in January, a study found that the unemployment rate among recent graduates with bachelor’s degrees in anthropology and archaeology was 10.5%, surpassed by few other majors, and that anthropology majors who did get jobs were also among the lowest paid. It’s been a tough year for anthropology, but don’t count out this field: Most said the bad press wasn’t fair, noting that the situation is very different for bachelor’s degree– and advanced degree–holders.”
I do not have access to the full text, unfortunately. I can tell, though, that the study cited in the abstract only focuses on undergraduates. So there is a bias in her report, just as she writes in the last sentence. Without a doubt, those with graduate degrees have better opportunities.
What I do understand from my experience is that I was offered outrageously low salaries upon graduating with my Bachelor’s in Anthropology. My life was unsustainable. For that reason, I focused my Master’s in Biology, as my prospects in that field offered more financial stability.
Furthermore, anthropology is also plagued by misunderstandings. Scientists and non-scientists often do not know what anthropology is and what the can be gained from this field. I believe this is one of the reasons why the field is not adequately compensated.
I will leave this thread open for discussion by you, the readers, on what you think can be done to increase the financial return and improving the perception of the field.
Gibbons, A. (2012). An Annus Horribilis for Anthropology? Science, 338 (6114), 1520-1520 DOI: 10.1126/science.338.6114.1520
Thanks to the Maya Long Count calendar, the year 2012 has become something of a pop culture phenomenon. You’ve probably seen plenty of TV, movie, and internet references to the upcoming “end of the world” on December 21st or December 23rd (it depends). It’s a real bummer because the hope of “next year” is the only thing that has sustained me as a lifelong Seattle sports fan; once the Mariners win a World Series, then the world can end!
But, seriously, Maya scholars are not worried about 2012 being Earth’s last year. I’m neither a Maya scholar nor Maya descendant, so most of what I know about Maya calculations of time comes from popular sources like books, magazines, and documentaries. In other words, despite being an anthropologist, I make no claims of being a Maya expert.
Here’s what I’ve learned: The Ancient Maya constructed elaborate calendars to mark the passage of time – everything from the length of a human pregnancy to the age of the universe. Time was extremely important in Maya daily life and cosmology (the November/December issue of Archaeology Magazine – and final issue if the world does end this year – has a great summary of Maya calendars). The Long Count calendar counts the number of days since the mythological date of Maya creation, and includes 1,872,000-day cycles called bak’tuns. There are few known glyphs covering the 13th (current) bak’tun, but it is calculated to end on December 21st (or 23rd), 2012.
Obviously, most of us aren’t fearful about units of time coming to an end. For example, seasons, decades, and centuries all end and new ones begin, usually without mass hysteria (Y2K was one recent exception). It’s important to remember that the Long Count calendar marks the passage of time from a mythological date of creation. This date is ritually significant, but we now know that time didn’t actually begin on August 11, 3114 BC (Maya date), October 23, 4004 BC (Ussher date), or any other date based on religious speculation. Therefore, as Stephen Jay Gould wrote about Millennium panic in the year 2000, 2012 is an observance of a “precisely arbitrary countdown.” Most of the end-of-the-world stuff comes from outside of the Maya world. A recent AP article noted: “Such apocalyptic visions have been common for more than 1,000 years in Western, Christian thinking, and are not native to Maya thought.”
Modern Maya are excited about this year’s potential to spur interest in ancient Mesoamerica and archaeological tourism. Guatemala has a great Bak’tun Route ad campaign which focuses on 2012 as a beginning, not an end. Modern Guatemalan Maya communities still have “Daykeepers” who keep track of time: “’The world is going to die on December 23rd,’ says Christenson [Brigham Young University anthropologist], explaining that the Maya believe the world dies each day when the sun sets, or when crops are harvested. ‘The world is constantly dying,’ he says, ‘and the role of the Daykeeper is to make sure they get things going again.’”
So, despite the end of the 13thbak’tun, I still have time to learn more about ancient Mesoamerica and, hopefully, enough time to see my Mariners win a World Series. There’s always next year…
The Cover of National Geographic Magazine for July 2012
The July 2012 edition of the National Geographic magazine features a cover story on Easter Island’s statues and how these enormous 33 feet tall and 80 ton statues or moai came to existence. Just how the moai were constructed, transported and erected on Easter Island remains a mystery, one leading to a lot of speculation.
To my count, there have been five or so earlier theories on just how the moai were moved. In 1955, Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl lead an experiment on Rapa Nui where he and 180 men tried to erect a 13 foot, 10 ton moai on a tree trunk and drag it. A Rapa Nui onlooker informed him how, “totally wrong,” he was. He published two large volumes of scientific reports titled Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacificand later Heyerdahl added a third to the collection, The Art of Easter Island.
William Mulloy, an American anthropologist, theorized in 1970 the erection of the maoi using a desktop model. He thought he could swing the moai forward in steps while hanging the statue by the neck from an inverted wooden V structure. A photo of his model in deployment can be found on the Wikipedia page outlining his time on Rapa Nui. Sixteen years later, in 1986, Czech engineer Pavel Pavel along with Heyerdahl and 17 assistants walked on of the real 13 foot, 9 ton moai by using a twisting motion, and not a rocking motion. In doing so, they damaged the base, but the Wikipedia page on his efforts indicate success.
Within a year of Pavel’s trials, archaeologist Charles Love showed much more success. He and a team of 25 people stood up a replica 13 foot, 9 ton on a wooden sledge and then hauled it on rollers. In two short minutes they moved the replica 148 feet. Another American archaeologist, Jo anne Van Tilburg, gave it a shot in 1998. She and her team of 40 volunteers laid a 13 foot, 10 ton replica also on a wooden sledge. They were able to move the statue 230 feet, using a Polynesian wood ladder.
In the cover story, If They Could Only Talk, archaeologists Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo bring up a new theory one that is potentially plausible; three small groups of people balanced the statues on its base and transported it by guiding and waddling it along with ropes.
The article also offers up a larger context and reinterpretation of the Easter Islanders, one which describes them as adaptable and sustainable,
“…based on their own archaeological survey of the island, they think its population grew rapidly after settlement to around 3,000 and then remained more or less stable until the arrival of Europeans.
Cleared fields were more valuable to the Rapanui than palm forests were. But they were wind-lashed, infertile fields watered by erratic rains. Easter Island was a tough place to make a living. It required heroic efforts. In farming, as in moai moving, the islanders shifted monumental amounts of rock—but into their fields, not out. They built thousands of circular stone windbreaks, called manavai, and gardened inside them. They mulched whole fields with broken volcanic rocks to keep the soil moist and fertilized it with nutrients that the volcanoes were no longer spreading.”
Additionally, Hunt & Lipo describe how the Rapanui people were the victims of genocide, decimated by disease introduced by Western explorers and 19th century slave trading, an idea that resonates with many other indigenous populations. Both ideas are at odds with the prevalent idea that the Rapa Nui people are one of the prime examples of ecocide, by exploiting their environment to the point of no return, as explained by Hunt himself in 2005 and supplemented by Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel and his later work, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
These new ideas are thought-provoking and will fuel the discussion for years to come. If you would like to read more, be sure to pick up a copy of the article or check it out online. There is also an iPad app where you can read the paper and interact with multimedia features.
A new paper in the journal Science questions if it were Neanderthals or humans who created the oldest known artworks found in the caves of Europe. The lead author is Alistair W.G. Pike who worked with Joao Zilhao and nine other authors on this study.
Alistair W.G. Pike taking speleothems samples from a cave site in Spain for uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating.
The authors addressed this question in, “U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain,” by not dating the material of the painting themselves, but rather through dating mineral deposits known as speleothems (commonly known as stalagmites and stalactites, which can also be solid sheets of rock) that are found directly adjacent to the material. They analyzed the speleothems for the uranium to thorium ratios of over 50 pieces of cave art from 11 caves throughout Spain, of which three results were particularly intriguing.
The study relies on the concept that mineral forming rock flows over the walls of the caves covered in paleolithic art work. In doing so, it forms a sort of time capsule, meaning that anything encased within the flowstone is older than the flowstone itself. By comparing the ratio of atoms in the minerals deposited nearest the cave wall, the team was able to calculate the lower limit on the age of the art that lies just beneath.
U-Th ratios indicate that the red disk was made at least 40,800 years ago and the hand stencils were made 37,300 years ago.
The results show that cave art began in the Early Aurignacian period, at about 40,800 years ago for a red disk and 37,300 years ago for the hand stencil which is pictured above and 35,600 years for the claviform-like symbol pictured blow.
U:Th ratios indicate this calviform symbol was made at least 35,600 years ago.
If the earliest cave paintings appeared at around or before 40,800 years ago, then this the cave art coincides with the arrival of modern humans in western Europe which is thought to be 41,500 years ago. But since 40,800 is a minimum age for the earliest cave paintings, it cannot be ruled out that the cave paintings are works of Neanderthals who we know were in Spain at least 42,000 years ago… To know for sure we need samples dating older than 42, 43, 44,000 years ago.
Pike, A., Hoffmann, D., Garcia-Diez, M., Pettitt, P., Alcolea, J., De Balbin, R., Gonzalez-Sainz, C., de las Heras, C., Lasheras, J., Montes, R., & Zilhao, J. (2012). U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain Science, 336 (6087), 1409-1413 DOI: 10.1126/science.1219957
This week PNAS published evidence of social stratification and hereditary inequality from over 7,000 years ago in Central Europe. Lead author, R. Alexander Bentley and team took strontium 86/87 isotope ratios of the enamel of teeth of over 300 early Neolithic humans from seven different sites (Aiterhofen, Ensisheim, Kleinhadersdorf, Nitra, Souffelweyersheim, Schwetzingen, and Vedrovice). The ratio of strontium isotopes are a geological signature of the location where an individual was raised.
The researchers found less variance in the strontium ratios among males than we find among females, indicating females moved around more than males. This is not a surprising find, as many cultures often “ship off” females. We even have an anthropological term for it, patrilocality. However for people from 5,5000 BCE, this sheds some light into division of labor and gender roles.
An adze unearthed at the site. (Dr. Britta Ramminger)
One fascinating result is there was less variance noted among male who were buried with their stone adzes than burials of men without such adzes. Furthermore, those buried with adzes had more isotopes associated with fertile loess — a type of sediment that often yields high agricultural return. This means that those men with the tools stayed and cultivated their lands.
This data provides some of the earliest prehistorical archaeological evidence to infer community differentiation and kinship, two cultural concepts… Where women moved for marriage, and families of men stayed in the same place, retaining access to, and inheriting, the same lands. Neolithic peoples of Central Europe were maintaining the wealth and land of their forefathers, and it shows it was happening long before lavish burials for wealthy people made it obvious.
Bentley, R., Bickle, P., Fibiger, L., Nowell, G., Dale, C., Hedges, R., Hamilton, J., Wahl, J., Francken, M., Grupe, G., Lenneis, E., Teschler-Nicola, M., Arbogast, R., Hofmann, D., & Whittle, A. (2012). Community differentiation and kinship among Europe‘s first farmers Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesDOI: 10.1073/pnas.1113710109
A couple weeks ago, proof of the oldest examples of human art made the rounds. I did not publish a post about that on here because I did not find the evidence compelling enough to warrant a discussion. Today, however, another archaeological story does deserve a nod. The Journal of Human Evolution published a paper on the oldest evidence of a human made evidence. The bone flutes come from the Geißenklösterle cave in Germany and outdate prior musical instruments by at least 5,000 years.
The flutes are made from bird bone and mammoth ivory, and look similar to the more younger examples that were announced in 2009. Tom Higham is the lead author, and the man who I presume dated the bones; the paper includes Nick Conard.
In their paper, the authors discuss the importance of the Danube River in providing a corridor to funnel humans and their technologies into central Europe during the dawn of the Aurignacian. To support this claim, the Geißenklösterle site has yielded more than just these flutes. The researchers have found personal ornaments, figurative art, mythical imagery and musical instruments from the cave, all dating to a period before the beginning of an ice age around 40,000 years ago. Highman writes,
“[Modern humans] were in Central Europe at least 2,000-3,000 years before this climatic deterioration, when huge icebergs calved from ice sheets in the northern Atlantic and temperatures plummeted… The question is what effect this downturn might have had on the people in Europe at the time.”
Higham, T., Basell, L., Jacobi, R., Wood, R., Ramsey, C., & Conard, N. (2012). Τesting models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figurative art and music: The radiocarbon chronology of Geißenklösterle Journal of Human EvolutionDOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.03.003
One of my favorite columns is the NCBI ROFL series from Discoblog. Yesterday’s post is a case in point example. The May 2012 issue of the Journal of Forensic Sciences included an interpretation of the 2009 finding of a medieval plague burial site including a female individual with a brick in her mouth. The burial site dates to 1576. After ruling out that the brick could not have accidentally fallen into this dead lady’s mouth, and understanding of this ritual was built,
“We assume that during the digging of a hole in the ground for a person who had just died of the plague, the gravediggers cut off the ID 6 deposition. They noticed the shroud (its presence is suggested by the verticalization of the clavicle) and a hole, which corresponded with the mouth. As the body appeared as quite intact, they probably recognized in that body the so-called vampire, responsible for plague by chewing her shroud. As a consequence, they inserted a brick in her mouth. The sequence of those events (time since death) can be deduced by the lack of alteration on the skeleton joints, so that we can suppose that the gravediggers dealt with the corpse when it was not disjointed yet. The insertion of the brick into the mouth at the time of the primary deposition can be ruled out because we have no reference, even folkloric, for such a practice in that historical and cultural context.
It is not strange that superstitions concerning vampires were widespread in the 16th to 17th centuries even in a “cosmopolitan” and evolved city like Venice. It is surprising, however, that this exorcism ritual has been clearly recognized in an archaeological context: the ID 6 grave could well be the first “vampire” burial archaeologically attested and studied by a forensic odontological and anthropological approach.”
Minozzi, S., Fornaciari, A., & Fornaciari, G. (2012). Commentary on: Nuzzolese E, Borrini M. Forensic approach to an archaeological casework of “vampire” skeletal remains in Venice: odontological and anthropological prospectus. J Forensic Sci 2010; 55(6):1634-37 Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57 (3), 843-844 DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02100.x
June 12th is the 30th anniversary of Raiders of the Lost Arkand 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.
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 Manis 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?
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.
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?
