Digging It

Archaeology is how we come to understand who we are. The traces that remain of the distant past are being obliterated across the globe — submerged behind new dams, bulldozed to make way for freeways and high-rises — and that’s a horrifying tragedy. When it’s gone, it’s gone.

Other sites that would have yielded up priceless knowledge were looted in the 19th century, before the rise of modern archaeology. The human race is heedless. Who was it who said, “What we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history”?

And of course the soft bits rot. With a pitifully few exceptions, we have not a shred of evidence about what people wore 10,000 years ago. We know what kinds of meat they ate, because they left the bones scattered around. But we don’t know what they may have carved from wood — toys for their children, perhaps? — because the wood is gone. We don’t have their dances, their songs, their stories. All we have, for the most part, are teeth, bones, sharp-edged stones, and truckloads of shattered pottery.

I have this vision of the valleys of France, 30,000 years ago. In my vision, every boulder and exposed cliff is painted just as lavishly as the caves we know of today. All that remains are the cave paintings, because everything else washed away.

The meagerness of the archaeological record makes it quite likely that, when we attempt to interpret the distant past, we’ll be projecting our own cultural biases onto it. A hundred years ago, reputable scientists assured us that white Europeans were “more highly evolved” than “the primitive races.” Today we understand that that was utter rubbish. But the kinds of utter rubbish the leading authorities may be promulgating today are, of course, impossible for us to detect.

All the same, we’ve arrived at a point in time when it’s possible to understand, in broad outline, where the human race came from and how we got to where we are today. A humble blog is not the place to tell the whole tale, even in outline form. You wouldn’t have the patience to read it, and I’d be up until four in the morning writing it.

Rocks are interesting, though. For a very long time our ancestors seem to have had very little in the way of culture, other than a tendency to carry around sharp-edged rocks and keep fires from going out. We don’t know why they tended fires, but sharp-edged rocks would have been quite useful for animals who couldn’t run fast and didn’t have big teeth or claws. We have to assume that long before the invention of the spear, our ancestors were protecting themselves and their loved ones by clobbering hyenas with specially sharpened chunks of rock.

Prior to that, there would of necessity have been a period of time — a million years or so — when rocks were being carried around in a systematic way, but weren’t being intentionally sharpened. Such weapons would be impossible to identify today, because they wouldn’t look any different from any other rocks. Having the sense to find a rock with a sharp edge would give you an edge (so to speak) in a nasty confrontation, either with a hyena or with a rival for the affections of a young lady. Figuring out how to make a rock with a sharp edge was surely one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

An abiding interest in carrying rocks might have contributed very materially to our ancestors’ development of an erect, bipedal gait. It’s known that the bipedal gait existed for millions of years before our nearer ancestors’ brains started to swell up.

We don’t know when or how language began to develop. Best estimates are that full language has existed for no more than 150,000 years, perhaps less. But it didn’t fall out of Apollo’s chariot, or spring from the forehead of Zeus, fully formed. There would have been a long, long period of proto-language, in which a repertoire of nouns (“banana”) and adjectives (“green,” “ripe,” “wormy,” “plenty,” and “all gone” surely among them) would very gradually have expanded. Those who were best able to understand and utilize these vocal signals would have passed on their genes with greater frequency, not only because they would have been better fed but because they would have been able to cement social relationships more reliably. That’s how evolution works.

Once you see how it all is (or was), it’s impossible not to feel both immensely grateful and overwhelmingly humbled. And the great tragedy is that we’ll never know more than a tiny fraction of how the whole thing unfolded.

Tonight I got a book called Archaeology, Third Edition, out of the library. The author is David Hurst Thomas. It looks pretty interesting, and I’m looking forward to digging into it. But I found myself irked by a paragraph set on a page by itself, just before page 1. The paragraph is headed, “A Note about Human Remains.” It reads as follows:

“This book discusses, in several places, important new frontiers of bioarchaeological research. But we also recognize the need to deal with human remains in a respectful and sensitive manner. Several Native American elders have requested that we refrain from publishing photographs or other depictions of American Indian human remains. In specific response to this request, no such images appear in this book. Should other groups express similar concerns, these requests will be addressed in [future] editions as appropriate.”

My message for the Native American elders is this: Get over it. Your ancestors are just as dead as mine, neither more nor less. To the extent that your prissy “sensitivity” on this issue gets in the way of scientific research and thereby impedes our ability to learn about the past, you’re an asshole.

If anybody wants to dig up my ancestors’ graves in the peat bogs of Scotland or the hills of Wales, I say, go for it! I’d love to know more about how they lived.

How better to show them reverence, for Pete’s sake?

Footnote: I stand by my comments about the need to set aside cultural prejudices in the interest of doing good science — but after delving into this particular book a bit, I’ve changed my mind about the inclusion of this particular front-note. Archaeology, it turns out, isn’t a book about prehistory. It’s a book about doing archaeology — who the leading practitioners are, what they study, how they study it, where they dig, how they interpret what they dig up, and so on. In addition, it’s overwhelmingly about archaeology in the Americas (though there’s a short side trip to discuss Schliemann’s excavation of Troy, a few bits about Egyptian mummies, and so on).

In that context, it’s not only appropriate but essential to remind budding archaeologists of the need to be both aware of and responsive to the concerns of the populations currently residing in the areas where they dig, whenever doing so doesn’t interfere with the science. In this particular book, there was no need to publish photos of the human remains of Native Americans, because the book is not primarily a study of the prehistory of the Americas (though you’ll learn a good bit about that if you read the book). It’s a book about how to be an archaeologist.

Since I’m not planning to become an archaeologist, that makes the book less interesting to me. But it does look like a fine book, if you’re on that path.

This entry was posted in evolution, random musings and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Digging It

  1. Conrad says:

    “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history,” was said by Hegel, and also, super-ironically, 100 years later by Shaw.

    Interesting thoughts on outdoors cave-man paintings.

    But the kinds of utter rubbish the leading authorities may be promulgating today are, of course, impossible for us to detect.

    No, I disagree with that. Any statements we come across which are theoretically or ideologically based, like this one, ought to be immediately suspect. And they ought to be more suspect if they serve some political ends, whether those of the ruling class or the ruled. And especially we must suspect any such statements that serve our own ends, or paint us or our culture in a positive light, since these are those statements which are most likely to hoodwink us.

    If you look at the history of science, you’ll see this fascinating tendency people have to take good evidence and, through a perfectly reasonable train of thought, turn it into something batshit insane. Lucretius, for example (an ancient Roman atomist for any of your readers who don’t know), said that:

    (1) There can be no preferred point in the Universe.

    Modern physicists accept this, cautiously, and call it the Cosmological Principle. Something like it was part of Einstein’s thinking on relativity.

    (2) If the Earth is spherical, then stuff on the far side falls toward its center.


    (3) This would make the center of the Earth a preferred point in the Universe.


    (4) The Earth is flat, and infinite in extent.

    –That’s the kind of reasoning we get from theoretical arguments. It makes for good hypotheses, to test against the evidence, but not for good conclusions.

    My message for the Native American elders is this: Get over it. Your ancestors are just as dead as mine, neither more nor less. To the extent that your prissy “sensitivity” on this issue gets in the way of scientific research and thereby impedes our ability to learn about the past, you’re an asshole.

    Fortunately or unfortunately, anthropologists like cultures; and therefore they take great care to place the normative values of the locals above their own operational concerns. And conversely, I’m sure many Native Americans would reply, “Sure, I’m being an asshole. Don’t print the photos.”

    But, as far as weird cultural battles go, I have a better one for you:

    Mormons have this thing where they’ll look up non-Mormon ancestors and pay to have their name written down in the Hall of Records (which is now a database), so as to ensure their salvation. In doing so, they retroactively make these ancestors Mormon.

    A big part of the Mormon culture is, apparently, tracing one’s ancestors back to Jews. So it came out that Mormons were paying to enter the names of long-dead Jews into this database of saved Mormons.

    Now, there are well-organized Jewish societies that are against anything which takes away or compromises the ethnic identity of deceased Jews. And the Mormon project clearly compromises these folks Jewishness.

    So it was a big thing, especially because it came out that the Mormons said they’d take the names out of their database and then sneakily put them back in.


    • prophet-5 says:

      During the night I realized I needed to add a paragraph near the end. I need to note that of course Native Americans can be forgiven for looking at anything the white guys do as insanely disrespectful of their ancestral cultures. A lot of today’s N.A. elders grew up, I’m pretty sure, in an era when they were forcibly taken away from their families, educated in white-run schools, and forbidden to speak their native languages. It’s no surprise if they jump to the conclusion that the archaeologists are being arrogant.

      All the same, discovering how our ancestors lived is important. Kowtowing to random cultural sensitivities when to do so is to foster yet more ignorance is a terrible mistake.

      • Conrad says:

        I’m glad to hear you say that. It had occurred to me as a major criticism, but from what I know of you I figured the point was omitted rather than dismissed.

        In general, I think an important piece of cultural respect is to take at face value a people’s prioritizations of their own traditions. The Native Americans do not want such photos published out of respect for the dead; the anthropologists did not publish them out of respect for the living.


  2. Justin says:

    I think the point being missed is that many native people have had people their ancestors remains for years and years. I am not only talking about old remains as apparently you are. The fact that you are disconnected from your ancestors in Scotland is too bad. So would you be ok If I got a shovel and went into the cemetery where your grandparents are buried or great grandparents and dug them up. I mean dead is dead. For some reason non native people think that because our ancestors were not christian and buried in the white way of looking at the world it wasnt a sacred place they were buried. Many of us would still live on the land our ancestors lived on and would never let archealogists dig them up if we still lived there. My tribe was removed from the great lakes to Kansas and then to Oklahoma. Indian remains have always been as free rain for anyone. There are people’s grandparents and great grandparents who have been dug out of their proper resting place and are sitting on shelves in some drawer of a filing cabinet at a museum or university. So when it comes to cultural sensativy to human remains one wouldnt expect a non native person to get it. Hell if you care so much about stuff honesty go out get a shovel and start digging up people in your local cemetery. Find out where your grandparents and great grandparents are buried dig them up and have them put on display at your house or a local university. Even to this day sacred burial sites are not respected because appartently its no big deal to go to some mounds and dig up an indian to take home as a trinket.

    • prophet-5 says:

      The point I think you may have missed is that I was talking specifically about disturbing human remains (and, indeed, photographing them and allowing students to study the photos) for specific scientific purposes. I was _not_ talking about digging up cemeteries for fun!

      Within that context, I have no problem with somebody going to Indiana and digging up my great-great-grandfather. If they have a valid scientific reason for wanting to study those bones, they should be allowed to do so.

      There is no such thing as “sacred,” so calling a burial site “sacred” is meaningless.

      • Conrad says:

        ..I was talking specifically about disturbing human remains .. for specific scientific purposes. I was _not_ talking about digging up cemeteries for fun!

        I have no doubt that this is an honest protest, Jim. But doesn’t the strength of your “dead is dead” argument work against it?

        I mean, if you *really* hold to your “dead is dead” line, and if a person’s concern over the bestowal of their ancestors is “prissiness,” what’s *wrong* with violating graves as a recreational activity?

        I had a girlfriend once who told me she’d gone along on a grave-robbing expedition when she was young. Some guy in their group dug up a grave, pried open the coffin, and cut off the corpse’s head. Then they brought it home and boiled it. He wanted a human skull.

        She was just along for the ride, but she was really surprised when I reacted with horror. There’s no good reason for me to react with horror; as she pointed out, the original owner didn’t need it any more. But I feel there are a lot of good bad reasons, starting with irrational sentimentality toward the dead.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s