Friday, November 30, 2012
uprightbipedalist:

jangojips:

tattooistart-magazine:

Via @jareddriscoll

HAH! 

sigh

uprightbipedalist:

jangojips:

tattooistart-magazine:

Via @jareddriscoll

HAH! 

sigh

Saturday, October 13, 2012

critink:

The Tattoos of Ancient Siberian Princesses

Tattoos as complex and abstract as any modern design have been found on the body of Siberian princess buried in the permafrost for more than 2500 years.

Natalia Polosmak, the scientist who found the remains of Princess Ukok high in mountains close to Russia’s border with Mongolia and China, said she was struck by how little has changed in the past two millennia.

Tattoos of mythological creatures and complex patterns are believed to have been status symbols for the ancient nomadic Pazyryk peple first described by the Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BC.

A striking tattoo of a deer with a griffons beak and Capricorn antlers was found on the left shoulder of the ancient ‘princess’, who died about age 25.

The antlers are decorated with the heads of griffons. And the same griffon’s head is shown on the back of the animal. She also has a dear’s head on her wrist, with big antlers.

“Our young woman - the ‘princess’ - has only her two arms tattooed,” Dr Polosmak told the Siberian Times. “So they signified both age and status.”

Buried with the ‘princess’ were six saddled-and-bridled horses, bronze and gold ornaments - and a small canister of cannabis.

She is not known to be a ‘princess’, as her name implies. Experts are divided over whether she was a poet, healer or holy woman.

Two warriors recovered from the same burial site in the permafrost of the Ukok Plateau were similar fantastical creatures. One had an image reaching across his right shoulder from his chest to his back.

The reconstructed tattoos were released to mark the moving of the remains of the princess to a permanent display in the National Museum in Gorno-Altaisk where she will be put on display.

Two warriors recovered from the same burial site in the permafrost of the Ukok Plateau were similar fantastical creatures. One had an image reaching across his right shoulder from his chest to his back.

The reconstructed tattoos were released to mark the moving of the remains of the princess to a permanent display in the National Museum in Gorno-Altaisk.

“Tattoos were used as a mean of personal identification - like a passport now, if you like,” said Dr Polosmak.

“I think we have not moved far from Pazyryks in how the tattoos are made.

“We can say that most likely there was - and is - one place on the body for everyone to start putting the tattoos on, and it was a left shoulder. I can assume so because all the mummies we found with just one tattoo had it on their left shoulders.

“And nowadays this is the same place where people try to put the tattoos on, thousands of years on.

“I think its linked to the body composition - as the left shoulder is the place where it is noticeable most, where it looks the most beautiful.”

Another similarity is how the number of tattoos is linked to age.

Dr Polosmak related the analogy of Greek tourist operators assessing the age of British tourists by the number of tattoos on their body.

But there the similarities end.

The tattoos used by the Pazyryk nomads were intended to help members of the tribe identify each other in the afterlife.

IMAGES:

  • TOPThe elaborate tattoo of a deer with a griffons beak and Capricorn antlers found on the body of a Polosmak ‘princess’.
  • MIDDLE: (1) Designs and locations on the princess’s body (2) Thumb and wrist tattoo locations on the “princess” (3) Body of a Pazyryk warrior buried nearby
  • BOTTOM: (1) Design and location on the warrior’s body (2) Design and location on the second warrior’s body

[source] Thanks to @iwillnothangmyselftoday for the tip on this awesome art-historical discovery.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012
coffee-n-cats:

staysandstories:

Frankenstein” Bog Mummies Discovered in Scotland
In a “eureka” moment worthy of Dr. Frankenstein, scientists have discovered that two 3,000-year-old Scottish “bog bodies” are actually made from the remains of six people.
According to new isotopic dating and DNA experiments, the mummies—a male and a female—were assembled from various body parts, although the purpose of the gruesome composites is likely lost to history.
The mummies were discovered more than a decade ago below the remnants of 11th-century houses at Cladh Hallan, a prehistoric village on the island of South Uist (map), off the coast of Scotland.
The bodies had been buried in the fetal position 300 to 600 years after death. (See bog body pictures.)
Based on the condition and structures of the skeletons, scientists had previously determined that the bodies had been placed in a peat bog just long enough to preserve them and then removed. The skeletons were then reburied hundreds of years later.
(Related pictures: “Ancient Bog Girl’s Face Reconstructed.”)
Terry Brown, a professor of biomedical archaeology at the University of Manchester, said there were clues that these bog bodies were more than they seemed.
On the female skeleton, “the jaw didn’t fit into the rest of the skull,” he said. “So Mike [Parker Pearson, of Sheffield University] came and said, Could we try to work it out through DNA testing?”
Brown sampled DNA from the female skeleton’s jawbone, skull, arm, and leg. The results show that bones came from different people, none of whom even shared the same mother, he said.
The female is made from body parts that date to around the same time period. But isotopic dating showed that the male mummy is made from people who died a few hundred years apart.

Who’s talking about this in my Europe lecture this fall?THIS GIRL. 

coffee-n-cats:

staysandstories:

Frankenstein” Bog Mummies Discovered in Scotland

In a “eureka” moment worthy of Dr. Frankenstein, scientists have discovered that two 3,000-year-old Scottish “bog bodies” are actually made from the remains of six people.

According to new isotopic dating and DNA experiments, the mummies—a male and a female—were assembled from various body parts, although the purpose of the gruesome composites is likely lost to history.

The mummies were discovered more than a decade ago below the remnants of 11th-century houses at Cladh Hallan, a prehistoric village on the island of South Uist (map), off the coast of Scotland.

The bodies had been buried in the fetal position 300 to 600 years after death. (See bog body pictures.)

Based on the condition and structures of the skeletons, scientists had previously determined that the bodies had been placed in a peat bog just long enough to preserve them and then removed. The skeletons were then reburied hundreds of years later.

(Related pictures: “Ancient Bog Girl’s Face Reconstructed.”)

Terry Brown, a professor of biomedical archaeology at the University of Manchester, said there were clues that these bog bodies were more than they seemed.

On the female skeleton, “the jaw didn’t fit into the rest of the skull,” he said. “So Mike [Parker Pearson, of Sheffield University] came and said, Could we try to work it out through DNA testing?”

Brown sampled DNA from the female skeleton’s jawbone, skull, arm, and leg. The results show that bones came from different people, none of whom even shared the same mother, he said.

The female is made from body parts that date to around the same time period. But isotopic dating showed that the male mummy is made from people who died a few hundred years apart.

Who’s talking about this in my Europe lecture this fall?

THIS GIRL. 

Monday, July 9, 2012
hotohoriaurion:

I’d subscribe

hotohoriaurion:

I’d subscribe

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Job opportunties and careers: what do you do with a degree in anthropology…

I got an Ask about job opportunities from a student in Puerto Rico.

—-

The quick answer is that you can do anything you want with a degree in anthropology. It sounds facetious, but if you want to do it and you have a background in anthropology, I am positive that the case could be made for how the two relate. Anthropologists work in business, government, media, development - and not because they couldn’t find jobs in anthropology.

The most obvious answer (the path I’m trying to head down - and the one that your family probably pictures when you say anthropology) is ….. Academia!

If you want to research and do fieldwork… it’s the simplest (although not always the easiest) way. Most archaeological excavations are done by academics, who are employed by universities, and go out into the field during the summer - and same for anthropology. It means that you stay at university your entire life - after graduation, work your way up through post-doc and fellowships, lecturing positions - and, one day, full-time professorship Teaching and writing and researching and publishing and (hopefully) doing fieldwork. It would be a good thing if you actually have a desire to teach (rather than just waiting around for field season) - but the issue of how universities have transitioned from being educational institutions into being primarily research institutions, while at the same time dramatically increasing the student body, is another conversation…

Most fieldwork and research is funded by by outside bodies (ie, not the university that employs you), and you don’t have to be affiliated with a university to get funding and start a study - but it does help, when it comes to grant applications.

Out in the “real world”:

Anthropology gives you a good background with which to make cross-cultural comparisons, to understand other cultures, to understand people’s reactions to other cultures, to analyze how different types of information relate to each other, and to help people with different backgrounds/ideas/languages/value systems/goals communicate with each other.

There’s a lot of good resources on the internet describing what jobs outside of universities exist for anthropologists so I won’t try to list things exhaustively (really, you could probably answer this question with a couple of hours on Google, much better than I can).

But, quickly, as just a starting point, a few that come to mind include:

For Anthropology, in general: Journalist.Loads of roles in the film industry (like, location scout - going ahead to a place before the film crew - or production assistant, or writer), any sort of work in Development and International Charity (from fund-raising to advertising to administrative to whatever hands-on work, be it teaching or medical intervention, that the charity runs). Social worker. Various roles in government, helping policy-makers understand scientific recommendations (about, for example, nutrition!)

For biological anthropology & archaeology: Science writer (ok, another type of journalist), even more government roles helping translate expert/scientific recommendations to policy makers or the general public. Museum work is always an option (but there are more and more universities offering programs tailored specifically to “museum studies” and curating, so it’s getting harder to compete for them straight after graduating). Archaeologist

If you’re willing to get a second degree or re-train slightly, having an anthropological background is really good when it comes to law (especially international law or human rights law), forensics (helping police identify dead skeletons/bodies),

Also, there’s a lot of archaeology that is done (nearly) independent of academia: Contract archaeologists work for private companies that are constructing new buildings - they go in quickly, survey the land, and make sure that nothing of historical significance will be destroyed in the process. I’d imagine that, as law changes to require this sort of survey, and as development throughout the developing world continues, there’s going to be no shortage of jobs in it.

DiscoverAnthropology.co.uk has a great collection of links and information, broken down by category: Business, Cultural Organisations, Development/International Aid, Government, Health, Media, Teaching, Tourism.

These are broad areas - but, depending on what you’re interested in, and what you picture yourself doing on a daily basis, there are a lot of specific careers that are a degree in anthropology (or archaeology - or biological anthropology, or nutrition and anthropology, or, or, or).

It helps to keep in mind that you need to build up experience.

What sort of job can I get within a month of graduating with a degree in anthropology?" is a very different question from "What can I aim for in five years, and is anthropology the right degree to set me on that path?”.

Internships internships internships. Stepping-stone jobs. Internships. Fieldwork. Volunteer. Internships.

A lot of employers put about equal importance on your education and you experience (and some weigh the experience more heavily). This is true for any field - someone graduating with a degree in journalism is going to have a hard time getting jobs without showing a list of internships and experience on their resume.

And even once you have that body of experience - unpaid internships you did while at school, or for the first few years after graduating - it can still be tough to get “the job” you want - so you might have to enter the field, get a stepping-stone job (some entry-level and easy, but at least in the right general category), and then prove yourself. (And people with degrees in mathematics and engineering have to do the same thing, too, to get where they want to be.)

EDIT - Realized I ignored Business & Industry and the whole wealth of jobs there - jobs not only that anthropological training would help prepare you for (marketing, strategic planning, consulting) but jobs specifcally tailored to anthropologists. My ignoring it probably has a lot to do with my being biased and having little interest in helping the cause of capitalism and in being somewhat horrified to think that anthropologists are using their powers for evil and helping the man. That said… google it. Lots of jobs.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Where’s the line between Archaeology and Anthropology?

I realized I didn’t really answer all of your question…
Hey! I was just turned onto your blog by another blog that had you as recommended reading. Getting back into college after a few years hiatus I was wondering if you could give me a brief summation of what to expect from a degree in Anthropology/Archaeology and the types of classes associated with this degree path (undergrad). I know a lot of the classes cross over into both divisions but where (if any) is the line drawn between anthropology/archaeology. I am leaning towards Paleoanthropology
kylemillerrocks


If you want to be technical about, Archaeology is generally considered a sub-field of Anthropology.

(Of course, when we say Anthropology, we usually mean Socio-cultural Anthropology.)

Some people think of Archaeology as “anthropology of the past” because, really, they have the same goal: insight into the lifestyle of a people. (And then there’s the whole “archaeology is just a handmaid to history” thing.)

Archaeologists would disagree, and point out (rightfully) that there’s a lot of theory and perceptual work that has developed within archaeology that goes beyond finding things for historians to interpret or just looking at things instead of spending time with the people because the people are dead.

I had a professor who said that Archaeology was a discipline completely obsessed with its methodology at the expense of its point. (But for that matter, Social anthropology is as tightly wrapped around ethnography as archaeology is about excavating, so…)

The same professor - a Social anthropologist - did admit that Archaeology has, historically and currently, been far more open to incorporating anthropology than the other way around.) Archaeology is a lot more interdisciplinary, in general - and has had to be: geology, chemistry, physics, geography… I’d even say that most archaeologists don’t particularly care about disciplinary boundaries (they’re happy to incorporate whatever they need to get the job done).

Anthropology, in my opinion, has had to become a bit defensive about claiming disciplinary territory because it’s own keeps shrinking. Each time a new development is made, each time new ground is broken, specialists go off and divorce themselves from Anthropology (both the Socio-cultural branch and Anthropology as a whole). There’s a long list of “disciplines” that are, both in theory and method, essentially anthropological: sociology, women’s studies, ethnic studies, peace and conflict studies, global issues, post-colonialism. But they don’t publish in anthropology, they don’t bring in money to anthropological departments. (This is just my opinion. I’m sure researchers in any of those fields will be happy to tell me that I’m generalizing and misrepresenting their work. I’ve tried this argument out loud before and been told that, by the same logic, everything should be considered Philosophy - if not Physics. Anyway, I’m off topic.)

On a practical level: Archaeologists dig things up. (Socio-Cultural) Anthropologists don’t. Archaeologists deal with past civilizations - be it several thousand years past, or two weeks ago - by looking at what they have left behind. (Socio-Cultural) Anthropologists spend time with living people.

(And Anthropology - with a big A, Anthropology as a whole - puts the pieces together and finds the common ground. But not very many people are bothering to do Anthropology - with a big A - any more, and when they do it, as documentary makers or as social commentary or as thinkers, they sometimes forget to call it Anthropology.)

But, if you really get down to what’s being done in the field, any firm line (methodological or theoretical) sort of disappears. (Probably somewhere between Historical Archaeology and Material Culture Studies and Ethno-archaeology, if you want to be specific. And don’t even get me started on Evolutionary Psychology and where it should sit.)

The relationship between Archaeology and Anthropology is a bit tense, politically.

Basically: Anthropology is busy defending its disciplinary limits while Archaeology (and Biological Anthropology) are busy pushing those limits. (And there’s only so much money to go around.)

There’s less of a conflict between American (Cultural) anthropology and Archaeology than there is between British (Social) anthropology and Archaeology. Mainly, the difference is down to the history of who’s studied what: “Native American” (indigenous peoples) were always studied by both branches and it seemed pretty obvious that they should be. Europeans, though, used to have a clear line between what the Archaeologists dug up (bronze age things) and who the anthropologists studied (exotic foreigners somewhere far away).

The conflict in the UK has (pretty much) gotten better. (A number of universities are re-organizing their departmental structure and bringing the branches together. Here at Cambridge, the Biological Anthropology “department” is now part of a super Archaeology and Anthropology department. Not that this seems to have changed anything in the day to day - but its the thought that counts…)

And then if you bring in the other branches: (American) Physical anthropology, or (British) Biological anthropology…

In the US, there’s a new “battle” between Physical anthropology and Cultural anthropology, and it’s all about whether or not Anthropology (in general) is a science - and how much it matters if it is.

Socio-cultural Anthropology has gotten more and more post-modern and reflexive and shied away from statements of objectivity and empiricism. This is, in my opinion (and I’d wager to say, most Social or Cultural Anthropologists working today), a good thing - but it’s left Physical Anthropologists out in the cold, unable to identify as Anthropologists and Scientists at the same time.

(Best example of the problem: the American Anthropological Association actually removed the word “science” from its mission statement. Regardless of the fact that alienating Physical anthropologists probably wasn’t the intention in the change in phrasing, it was certainly interpreted that way. The response by Physical anthropologists - who, let’s face it, studying human evolution in the US are probably a little on edge at all times - may be part of a bigger thing in Anthropology, or a bigger thing in American. Disciplinary gerrymandering or side-effect of anti-intellectualism - either way, it’s a “thing”.)

Kind of like the Archaeologists, Physical anthropologists are interdisciplinary, and don’t care. They do what they want to do to get the job done - and many of them work out of whatever department wants to sponsor the thing that they’re currently doing. And this has become increasingly codified in the departmental structure. (Harvard, for example, has moved its paleoanth people out of Anthropology and into a new department of Evolutionary Biology.)

And what about paleoanthropology?

You can kind of think of paleoanthropology as a bridge between Archaeology and Physical-Biological Anthropology. We need the methods and insights of both.

Historically, “we” came out of Anthropology - pure, big A, Anthropology. It was all about the big picture, studying and understanding humanity. (Leakey was responsible for sending Goodall, Fosey, and Galdikas out to do their work, after all.)

A few decades ago, paleoanthropologists were specialized archaeologists: they dug up fossils. Today, you have to know more than the bones - even if you want to work with the bones.

I’d even go so far as to say that paleoanthropology has always been at the cutting edge of archaeology, doing the most “scientific” and interdisciplinary work - that in turn changed the discipline of archaeology. (Of course, I’m a bit biased.)

I’ve heard people argue about the merits of keeping paleoanth in anthropology - on one level, it’s a semantic battle that makes little difference to the work being done. (However, when that battles affects office space,  funding, and the number of students who can be admitted - semantics start to seem a lot more serious)

Personally, I see myself as an Anthropologist - more importantly, I see the sort of work that I would like to pursue, research into human origins, as Anthropological.

Not just because I love reading about Social Anthropology and was trained in the 4-field system (well, sort of; we don’t call it that here in England) - but, because I think that the history of the discipline, and the theoretical under-pinnings of it, are necessary to paleoanthropology. I don’t want to be an applied biologist; I want to be a Biological Anthropologist.

Paleoanthropology is about digging up fossils, about looking at the mechanics, the biology, and the structure, about formulating comparisons and  considering implications - but it’s also about the nature of humanity.

I need (and I believe the discipline needs) to remember the context, the bigger picture, and the non-empirical, entirely subjective, interpretative theories that have come from Anthropology.

I’m following my own rules of capitalization when it comes to disciplinary sub-fields in order to distinguish between them. Sorry. And I’ve already edited this twice to fix Biological/Physical/Social/Cultural confusion. Hopefully it now makes sense.

kylemillerrocks-deactivated2013 said: Hey! I was just turned onto your blog by another blog that had you as recommended reading. Getting back into college after a few years hiatus I was wondering if you could give me a brief summation of what to expect from a degree in Anthropology/Archaeology and the types of classes associated with this degree path (undergrad). I know a lot of the classes cross over into both divisions but where (if any) is the line drawn between anthropology/archaeology. I am leaning towards Paleoanthropology

Hello!

I’ve had a few similar asks in the past: studying archaeology as a background to paleoanthropology and how to find PhD programs in paleoanthropology. (Although, glancing through the first link, I’ve just repeated a lot of the same stuff…)

What to expect from a degree in Anthropology/Archaeology

I did my undergrad in the UK, so I can’t really speak about American programs (I’m guessing that’s where you’re planning on studying?) except to make assumptions and repeat things I’ve heard.

(I went to high school in California, applied to American colleges, and most of my classmates went to college in the US - but no one I know personally studied Arch & Anth. Actually, not true, there are a number of people in my master’s program currently who did their undergrad in the US. As far as I know, most of them have a background in biology, biological anthropology rather than Arch & Anth.)

I know that the day-to-day experience will depend on the school and the department - what their gen ed requirements are like, how much focus they have on lab and fieldwork.

The good news about that is that most universities make that sort of stuff very clear on their website. It might take a bit of digging - the department’s page or buried somewhere in degree requirements or FAQ for potential students - but you should be able to get a clear picture of what classes you can take, how many you’ll be taking each semester, what fieldwork will be available (and how much you’ll have to pay for it, on top of your tuition).

Course catalogs are beautiful things. (Although they’re usually out of date. So it’s more an idea of what you might get than a promise of what will be there.) Looking over the staff profiles - to see who is full time and what their specialities are - is often a good indication of what will be regularly offered.

Speaking (very) generally, I think that the structure of American undergrad programs gives you the ability to pick and chose classes between departments quite flexibly. So even if you’re a declared geology major, you can take anthropology classes, and vice versa, and you can structure your four years to be get what you want out of it. (That said, it depends on the school.)

Most American colleges focus on cultural/social anthropology. And a lot of archaeology departments are focused on Native America, Latin American, and Historical archaeology - at least, that’s the impression I got. Physical/biological anthropology is a broad field (primates, genetics, disease burden, development issues, network theory, etc) - so if you want to make sure you’re going to be taking classes and learning about paleo, read the fine print.

Pure paleoanthropological programs, at least when I was applying (five years ago) were rare. And then tend to go by a variety of names - at some colleges, human evolution and paleo is tied into Evolutionary Biology (whereas, at other colleges, Evo Bio is molecular and ecological).

A classical Arch & Anth program - or a 4-field Anthropology program (Cultural/Social, Physical/Biological, Archaeology, and Linguistics) should broadly prepare you for all four fields (obviously) but it’s get a focus and find a way to make sure you take the right classes.

I think the weakness of the classic Arch & Anth programs is that, if you are sure that you want to go on to work and research in paleo, there’s a lack of anatomy and geology components. While I’m happy that I did study Arch & Anth, there’s a lot that I learned that doesn’t necessarily apply to my future work (Malinowski, feminist anthropology, African witchcraft believes, etc) but has broadened my theoretical understanding of the larger issues. I’m a bit jealous of some of my peers who studied biology as an undergrad, because they have a competent and solid grasp of things I’m still struggling with (I could have done with a forensics or osteology lab, for example). Of course, they might say the same about me, and there are things that they’ve learned that don’t apply to paleo.

Even paleoanthropology itself is a broad field. Depending on what sort of work you see yourself doing in the future (and what you learn may lead you to change your mind), you might want to consider minoring in chemistry, physics, anatomy, geology, genetics, or art history.

At the end of the day, chosing a speciality is a compromise between what you find the most exciting, and what you can see yourself enjoying doing on a daily basis.

As interesting as I find the papers on genomics and sequencing of the Neandertal genome - or isotope studies that reveal dietary and migration information - I know that I wouldn’t necessarily enjoy the sort of lab-work that it entails. As far as geology goes, I’m an very glad that there are people who love it, and I am happy to turn to them. Personally, I love fieldwork. I’m in it for the excavations and fossils and human origins. But maybe also artefacts and the origins of cognitive systems. Or maybe primate divergence. (See my problem?) If I already had a definitive focus - much less if I’d had one as an undergrad - I could have saved time and geared up. But, I really am glad to have the “big picture” background knowledge from Arch & Anth, because while I will have to specialize for a PhD - and what I do as a PhD will direct the first five to ten years of my career - I have a framework to understand, to continue reading and learning about, work in other areas of paleo - and archaeology.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Bog bodies are cool.

acivilizedape:

fuckyeahvikingsandcelts:

Tollund Man by summoning_ifrit on Flickr.
Via Flickr:Tollund Man “The Tollund Man is the naturally mummified corpse of a man who lived during the 4th century BCE, during the time period characterised in Scandinavia as the Pre-Roman Iron Age. He was found in 1950 buried in a peat bog on the Jutland Peninsula in Denmark, which preserved his body. Such a find is known as a bog body. Tollund Man, and in particular the head and face, was so well-preserved that at the time of discovery he was mistaken for a recently deceased murder victim” - enWikipedia

I have always found bog bodies fascinating. 

acivilizedape:

fuckyeahvikingsandcelts:

Tollund Man by summoning_ifrit on Flickr.

Via Flickr:
Tollund Man
“The Tollund Man is the naturally mummified corpse of a man who lived during the 4th century BCE, during the time period characterised in Scandinavia as the Pre-Roman Iron Age. He was found in 1950 buried in a peat bog on the Jutland Peninsula in Denmark, which preserved his body. Such a find is known as a bog body. Tollund Man, and in particular the head and face, was so well-preserved that at the time of discovery he was mistaken for a recently deceased murder victim” - enWikipedia

I have always found bog bodies fascinating. 

Saturday, April 21, 2012
ON A DIG!
This might be the only picture of me doing (actual) archaeology. (I’ve just recovered it from the archives of Facebook. And, no, I wouldn’t particularly like to explain what I was doing there.)
This Look at how clean my boots were - they’re a complete different colour now. (My hair too, but that’s a different story.) And the trowel - back before I had (and then lost) a nice one.
Seriously, though. Winter’s over, spring is here - some days you can almost feel summer - and my Field-Season-spidey-sense is tingling.
Somewhere out there someone has begun digging. (And I want in on it.)

ON A DIG!

This might be the only picture of me doing (actual) archaeology. (I’ve just recovered it from the archives of Facebook. And, no, I wouldn’t particularly like to explain what I was doing there.)

This Look at how clean my boots were - they’re a complete different colour now. (My hair too, but that’s a different story.) And the trowel - back before I had (and then lost) a nice one.

Seriously, though. Winter’s over, spring is here - some days you can almost feel summer - and my Field-Season-spidey-sense is tingling.

Somewhere out there someone has begun digging. (And I want in on it.)

Saturday, April 7, 2012
thesherd:

Earliest evidence of use of fire by human ancestors: Excavation of animal bones and stone tools at Wonderwerk Cave also revealed traces of wood ash all within a layer dating back one million years ago.    (via Evidence that human ancestors used fire one million years ago)

thesherd:

Earliest evidence of use of fire by human ancestors: Excavation of animal bones and stone tools at Wonderwerk Cave also revealed traces of wood ash all within a layer dating back one million years ago.    (via Evidence that human ancestors used fire one million years ago)

Thursday, March 8, 2012

gardant:

The Caldwell projection, with a 15-20° inclination, allows a clear visualization of the orbits which would otherwise be obstructed by the petrous ridges. The x-ray can be taken antero-posteriorly or postero-anteriorly, depending on which structures need magnification.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

More online Arch & Anth textbooks

From SpringerLink, (presumably) free to students.

see the FULL LIST OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY TITLES.

Including several other paleoanth titles (which I’ll be downloading as soon as I have the time to name and file them properly)

*I’d already downloaded most of these chapters without realizing it was a book…

**Until I can find a “Statistics and SPSS for Palaeoanthropologists”… this will have to do. Quite timely, actually.

Book Reccomendation (and download link)

The 2007Handbook of Paleoanthropology” (by Henke, Hardt, & Tattersall) is absolutely amazing.

It’s at that perfect better-than-your-intro-textbook but not-so-narrowly-specific-as-journal-articles level (less patronizing and more specific - with a broader focus and explaining in the gaps).

It’s on SpringerLink - I can download the chapters individually as pdfs, but I’m guessing that the access is one of the perks of being a student. Those of you who can, I highly recommend downloading it. (And those of you not at universities - well, I’m sure you know someone that you can privately ask…)

By the way - the numbering of the chapters is crazy. Took me a while to sort out that it’s actually three volumes, a bit mixed up.

  • Vol 1 is background, evolution, taxonomy, paleo methodology, etc.
  • Vol 2 is primate evolution through the Miocene.
  • Vol 3 is hominid evolution, Australopithecines through H. sapiens, up to the Neolithic, including cognitive issues.

(PS. Amazon.co.uk wants to sell it to for £600. How crazy is that? Seriously?)