Holiday Greetings!

Six of One Half, A Dozen of the Other : Critically Evaluating the Costs & Benefits of Pop Culture Depictions of Anthropology

When I was in high school, one of my favorite teachers went on a little rant one day during the class discussion.  His rant focused on a popular television series that was about teachers, and he was upset about how teachers were depicted in this show.  The show provided an inaccurate depiction of his beloved profession, and he feared the repercussions that he may deal with when confronted by new acquaintances who learned that he was, in fact, an educator.  He then mused that one of his favorite television shows was about the personal and professional lives of lawyers, and he suspected that real lawyers probably felt the same way about that show as he did in regards to the show he now loathed. 

I bring up this short anecdote because I feel that same dread whenever someone compares my professional and educational endeavors to a popular television series, Bones, which is a popular comparison for one of my friends in particular who swears that my personality (and my namesake) are identical to that of the main character of the show.  But my dread goes beyond that.  I am often times questioned about whether or not I can complete the same tasks in the exact same manner to that seen on the show, and when I explain that I cannot because of the show being unrealistic, I am met with blank stares and the popular questions, "Well, why can't you do that?  What's wrong with you?"

For better or worse, anthropological subject matter is everywhere in popular culture.  Some of the more recognizable anthropological examples include Bones, the Indiana Jones franchise, the Lara Croft: Tombraider franchise, Ross Gellar of Friends (he was a paleoanthropologist), King Kong, and many more, but there are also not so recognizable examples as well, such as in less mainstream board games and video games and subtle references in popular television shows (e.g. C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation and Law and Order).  To be fair, there are disadvantages and advantages to these depictions, which will be further explored briefly in this blog post.

There are several disadvantages to these shows, aside from the personal grief felt by professional anthropologists who are annoyed (or worse) by questions from the lay public.  There are some very real and academically identified consequences, such as the CSI Effect, which demonstrates that such shows such as CSI and Bones misinform the public about the criminal justice system and the limits and realities of forensic sciences (anthropology included).  Several viable court cases were lost due to this misrepresentation because jurors were misinformed about the realities of evidence, and they expected more or mistakenly thought the evidence was flawed because it was "missing" key pieces of information that, in reality, could not be collected.  In addition, many people mistakenly believe common myths perpetuated by these pop culture depictions, such as dinosaurs and humans coexisted (there is no credible, scientific evidence that supports this assertion at this time), humans evolved from apes (please see second blog post for more information), and much much more.  Bad science and bad interpretations of good science does not serve anyone well.

But what about the advantages?  Do they exist?

Actually, yes, as much as some days I hate to admit it.  Many current anthropologists (in all disciplines) were drawn to the discipline because of something they saw or experienced in their pop culture experiences.  I am one of those individuals.  I used to watch documentaries with my father when I was a child, and it was the one on ancient Egyptian mummies that captured my imagination and interest in the discipline of anthropology.  That and the misinformation about dinosaurs: that digging up dinosaurs meant studying anthropology (see the first blog post), and that there were no dinosaur fossils left to excavate (both false statements.  Paleontology is alive and well!)  And several other anthropologists that I have met tell similar stories, be it about Indiana Jones or other similar pop culture icons. 

But it is not just anthropologists whose interests were captured.  Many students in anthropology classes were put there because someone (be it themselves, a parent, or adviser) was influenced by popular culture depictions of anthropology.  So these depictions help fill seats in classes, and from there, anthropology educators can educate students about the realities of the discipline, making up for the misinformation perpetuated by these depictions.  So in a way, without pop culture, anthropology may not be as popular a topic as it is today. 

So there you have it, the good, the bad, and the ugly, albeit no where near exhaustive review of popular culture depictions of anthropological subject matter.  While I will probably be forever annoyed by the questions and comparisons I deal with, there are still some that I am quite fond of.  Ultimately, I have pop culture to thank for leading me to a discipline and career I absolutely love, and I have pop culture allowing me to continue to do what I love, educating students who may or may not completely understand anthropology. 

Reigniting an Tried and True Debate on Human Origins...

Today’s post is in part inspired by my Anth 102/110L students who must undertake an assignment on human evolution, specifically focusing on the origins of our species (Homo. sapiens), as well as the recent discovery in Georgia of a potentially new specimen of Homo. erectus.

There are many philosophical questions that plague us as we grow up and gain a better understanding of ourselves: What is the meaning of life?  Why is there something rather than nothing?  Is there life after death?  Does this outfit make me look fat?  But one of the most profound is:

Where do we (humans) come from?

This is a question that has baffled paleoanthropologists for many decades, and one that has yielded several answers but never the truth.  Despite years of research, endless man hours dedicated to answering this question, countless articles and undergraduate, masters, & doctoral theses written on this topic, paleoanthropologists are still unable to answer this question.  But it is one that is still popular among paleoanthropologists, particularly today given the recent find of the Dmanisi skull. 

Failure to find the truth has led to several hypotheses being brought forth as a means of trying to understand our origins.  These hypotheses are the subject of today’s blog post, and each of the three has an opposing but plausible explanation regarding the origins of Homo. sapiens.  These three hypotheses include the Multiregional Evolution (MRE) model, the Out of Africa or Recent African Origin (RAO) model, and the Mostly-Out-of-Africa model.

The Multiregional Evolution (MRE) model was spearheaded by anthropologists Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari.  According to the MRE model, anatomically modern Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, but these species arose 2 million years ago (MYA), not 200,000 years ago with the departure of Homo ergaster from Africa and who then spread across the Old World, evolving genetic and phenotypic regional differences in response to their various environments and the factors of evolution (e.g. gene flow, founder’s effect, genetic drift, etc.)  These various populations remained in some contact and exchanged genetic information (through interbreeding), which maintained the production of a single species over a wide geographic distribution.  Specific traits that were adaptively beneficial for one population were spread to other populations as these individuals survived long enough to pass along their genetically advantageous traits.  In addition, ideas, cultural adaptations, and technologies were passed along through these various populations.

For the MRE model to be correct one expects to find no clear-cut evidence of a separation between anatomically modern and archaic Homo sapiens & hominids-be it morphologically or genetically speaking.  Transitional forms of the species should be found in various parts of the Old World with an admixture of traits among all the species.  As well, there should be regional continuity of traits with groups residing in Asia looking more similar than groups residing in Africa but there should never be so many differences so as to denote a separation of the species.    

Supporters of the MRE model claim that the differences seen among Homo. neanderthalensis and Homo. heidlbergensis and modern Homo sapiens are not differences in the sense of warranting a different species categorization but instead are variations within the same species.  These variations eventually gave rise to the modern human appearance we have today.   In fact, we see some features among specific modern groups, e.g. the continuous brow ridge of the Neanderthals is also present among Australian Aborigines (and according to several students and lay people, ex-significant others).  As well, there are no consistency among men or women regarding the degree they exhibit these features, so men and women will either demonstrate a strong or weak incidence of specific traits.  This sliding scale of the exhibition of traits is further evidence of possible links between humans and our hominid ancestors, supported by an independent study conducted by supporters of the MRE model.

The Out of Africa or Recent African Origin (RAO) model was spearheaded by Christopher Stringer and Ian Tattersall.  This model recognizes several different species in Homo genus, but that modern Homo sapiens branched off from other archaic Homo sapiens and hominid species around 200,000 to 150,000 years ago.  Anatomically modern Homo sapiens spread across the Old World and replaced other archaic and hominid species (e.g. Neanderthals).  This model is also known as the replacement model.

If model is correct there is an expectation of distinctive features between modern species and archaic Homo sapiens and hominid species, demonstrating a separation in species.  In other words, every single human on the planet must share specific traits that are not found in archaic Homo sapiens & hominids, and traits among archaic Homo sapiens and hominid species must not be found in modern humans.  Genetic differences should also be present.

Transitional fossils of both species should be found in one area of the world-the place of where modern Homo sapiens began, coupled with evidence of archaic and anatomically modern Homo sapiens existing in the same areas.  Eventually, archaic Homo sapiens & hominid species would have been replaced by anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

According to the supporters of the RAO model, transitional humanoid forms between hominid ancestors, Homo. neanderthalensis and Homo. heidelbergensis, and modern humans are only found in Africa.  They cite that anatomically modern humans first appear in Africa, as well, and subsequent evidence of said humans outside of Africa happens after their initial appearance in Africa.  Both human species and the hominid species exist at similar times.

With all this conflict and inability to settle on either of MRE or RAO models, John Relethford coined the Mostly-Out-of-Africa model.  The basic idea of this model is that most of our ancestors came from Africa but not all of them did.  It agrees with the MRE model in that our species began 2 MYA and gene flow among various geographically distant populations is the reason why we (humans) look so similar today, but it acknowledges the evidence cited by RAO model supporters that demonstrates that Africa was the origin of human based on fossil evidence.  

Supporters of the Mostly-out-of-African Model claim that there were two expansions out of Africa.  The first occurred with Homo ergaster leaving Africa and going to Asia (becoming the species we call Homo erectus).  Subsequent expansions may not have been African species physically leaving Africa but instead was the result of genes being passed through populations.  Specific traits that define us as human today may have started in Africa and spread across the globe through gene flow, so it was not an all out replacement of other species but a blending of them that created who we are today.     

As this post demonstrates, there remains a lot of unanswered questions concerning the origins of Homo. sapiens.  While the discovery of new hominid species, such as the Dmanisi skull, are meant to be a means to settle this debate, they have only added more fuel to the fire of this debate.  Hopefully as interest in the discipline grows and new methods realized, a resolution to this debate will be reached.  Until then, the mystery continues.

Spotlight on Students: Stereotypes in America

The following piece was written by Anthropology student, Devin Scherbak, and is the result of an assignment given to my Anth/Soc 205 students in which they were to discuss modern stereotypes of an American minority group.  The purpose of the assignment was to determine the historical and modern significance of those stereotypes as a means of dispelling them and discovering the truth behind the lies that many Americans believe.  This is her work:

African American and black complected individuals are the second largest minority group in the United States, with 13.5% of the population in the US falling into the racial category of “Black” (O’Connor 2013).  Aside from making up a large proportion of the United States, this group was among the first to colonize the United States and made major contributions to the development of its culture through their labor, intellectual expressions, and artistic creations. However, due to the overpowering presence of racism in the dominant American culture, African Americans are mistreated and misrepresented (Brown, 171). Due to the negative views and actions inflicted on African American culture, stereotypes have been created and are used to categorize and alienate this group of people from the “White only” aspects of American society. With a lack of education and understanding, these stereotypes become the only “fact” that the dominant American culture knows, and as a result, the majority mistreats African American citizens through the means of institutional discrimination, popular media portrayals, and everyday forms of prejudice and hate.

            It is popularly believed that the majority of African American men are delinquents, and that they are more likely, by nature, to commit acts of crime and violence.  This is due to the statistic that African American men make up 1 million out of the 2.3 million inmate population in the Untied States (www.NAACP.org). With the amount of media coverage on minority arrests and incarcerations, it is no surprise that the majority of the nation believes this particular stereotype. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that a majority of the arrests made are due to racial profiling by the arresters themselves. There are many different examples of racial profiling in police work, but the one referred to the most is the crack cocaine possession laws and how it has affected the rate of incarceration among African American men. According to the NAACP statistic fact sheet, African Americans made up 80% of the sentenced individuals under the federal crack cocaine laws in 2002, but served longer terms than white individuals incarcerated for either the same or greater offences. However, the percentage of black users is so high because white cocaine users are not sentenced as often as black users. It is clear that white offenders of this law are being released sooner than their fellow black inmates and are suffering fewer consequences for their drug use and possession. Because of the amount of freed white crack users, they make up 2/3s of the actual possession and user population of crack cocaine. Regardless of the statistics however, black men still make up the largest part of the arrest population because police rarely pick up white cocaine users. Unfortunately, because of the existing stereotype, black men become the focus of most criminal activity, and as a result, make up the largest portion of the prison population and are seen as a danger.

            Another popular belief is that African American families are more dysfunctional and incomplete when compared to white households. This is an idea that has been circulated for as long as the division of whites and blacks has existed. During the years of slave ownership, it was very common for African Americans to be a part of single parent households. However, this was due to the fact that the husband component of the family would die young due to physical stress and over working. Thus, the stereotype of paternal absence and divorce in African American homes was born. Today, it is commonly believed that black marriages fail more frequently and that women are the sole guardians of their children. Although the statistic supports high divorce rates among black families, it is merely 5% above the white household average of divorce (US Census Bureau). This makes the divorce rate far too similar to the white rate and thus dismisses the notion that black families have a much higher tendency to fail. As a matter of fact, African Americans have a huge focus on family connections and bonds. African American families tend to place more focus on extended family relations and place a completely different form of importance on the extended family as apposed to other ethnic groups (Brown, 199). This type of family unit was created from Black culture during the slave-owning eras. Because of the single parent households that were developed, single mothers had to rely on grandparent type figures to help raise the family. The same still is true today as many African American families form tight bonds and support groups among their communities and relatives. So in reality, African American families are quite strong and tight knit, with support that extends outside of the home. The myth of dysfunction in the family unit is still present though, due to popular media depictions and the misuse of statistics. Upon closer inspection, it is clear that African Americans have very strong family ties.  

            Due to the overwhelming amount of racism in the United States, there are many inaccurate and negative views placed on the African American community. Regardless of the statistical evidence supporting that there is little difference between white and black drug addicts or white and black families, the majority of people still believe that black men and women are inherently different in mentality and behavior. But in reality, the only difference that exists between these demographics is skin color and culture.

Works Cited:

Brown, Susan L. "African Americans." Race and Ethnicity: The United States and The World. Second ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2012. 171. Print.

"Criminal Justice Fact Sheet." www.NAACP.org. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

O'Connor, Liz, Gus Lubin, and Dina Spector. "The Largest Ancestry Groups In The United States." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

"How Divorce Rates Vary by Race and Ethnicity in the US." Divorcescience.org. n.p., 29 June 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. * [I did not use any of the written materials. Because the US government is not active at the moment, I was unable to access the actual US Census Bureau’s website. I interpreted the line graph that was posted by the article author that was taken from the actual Census Bureau’s site.]

Spotlight on Students: Potlatching Assignment

The following posts are guest posts from my students.  Several students did very well on their assignments in my Anth 101 class, and with their permission, I am posting their work here.  Their assignment focused on Northwest Coast Potlatching traditions and the comparison of them with modern American economic practices.

The first post is by Erika Madera-Falcon:

          The potlatches given by tribes in the North Pacific Coast show a great similarity to modern day affluent neighborhoods. Although potlatches are given to help those neighboring tribes who are going through hard times they serve more as a purpose to show publicly the wealth and status of those who are hosting the potlatch.

            Living less than a block away from larger and newer houses, it is not hard to see that the accumulations of material things are all for show. People can tell roughly how much money a person has based on the house they own. Most people would choose a larger house over a smaller house that could comfortably house each person if they had the money to do so. Then comes the cars they drive, the brand of clothes they wear, the unnecessary things they have, and the leisure they can afford. If other people cannot see how much money a person has, then there is no point in them having it. There is always a need to flaunt wealth, and it is apparent that this is no new concept of the 21^st century. Tribes hosting potlatches knew what prestige would be places upon them (or the chief) for publicly showing their generosity (or rather abundance) to host such an event and give goods to other tribes.

            In modern day, having money and not sharing it with others in need (publicly, of course) would make people think that the person does not care about others and is stingy with their money, or maybe it could be that they are afraid to give out money because they do not have a way of regaining it quickly as it may appear to be. Of course, none of them would want that thought of them. There are people who give money to charities or donate items to shelters and second hand stores because, like those North Pacific Coast tribes, they have the ability and wealth to do so. They could do it because they are genuinely generous, but that is not believed if they flaunt their good deeds to other people.

            There is not much other reasoning for the deeds that wealthy people do. Without actually sitting down and talking to a person of that status it is hard to see their actions in any other way. When wealthy parents donate large amounts of money to their children’s school they only use it as a topic of conversation at the next Parent Teacher Association meeting as they compare their generosity with that of the other parents. Their children also brag about the money their parents can afford to donate to the school to other students. Then with all the money they receive they can have a nice school with new textbooks and new equipment for sports teams. This gives the school prestige because they do not have to rely on the school budgets that other schools located in less wealthy communities have to.

A good example of that in our community is the difference between SSHS and SHS. SSHS is located in a very wealthy community, so they have money to get top of the line things for their relatively new school. SHS relies solely on the money they receive from the state, which is not nearly enough needed simply for repairs of the 100-year-old school. The neighborhood it is surrounded by does not have the money to be donating to the school like SSHS does. The parents from those neighborhoods could be legitimately generous and donate to SHS as the school could use the money tremendously, but they rather keep up the prestige of the school and keep the separation of those who have the money, and those who do not.

It appears that people who have the power to help and change things in the community, because money gives power, decide to use it poorly. They favor the prestige in the community over the possibility of helping those who need the money a great deal. They do donate to those who are less fortunate than most of the community, it is true, but some of the other money they donate is helping a cause that has already been solved.

This second post is written by Danielle Langum:

Potlatching was a ceremony practiced by Native American groups. The ceremony consisted of sponsors giving away material capitals or services while creating prestige for themselves.  Men, women, and children all participated in the potlatches. One obvious advantage of the potlatch was, “As it operates on the Northwest Coast, this institution, the potlatch, enables the individual to assemble an appreciative and purposeful audience outside his immediate localized kinship group” (Barnett 351). Parties of high and low status both benefited from the potlatching.

The activity in modern economic life that I would consider to be most comparative to Northwest Coast potlatching would be charities. A group of prestigious people are usually the founders and biggest contributors to charities. That being said everyone is invited to participate in charities, and wealth and services are being shared and spread around. The difference between charities, though, is that they are usually specific types of services for a specific type of cause. A comparative characteristic is the founder and biggest contributors of charities get recognition and prestige for their efforts and donations like the host of the potlatches do.  As stated in our hand out potlatching “affords an opportunity for participation by all classes and degrees of property owners accounting to their means” as the same with charities (Barnett 351).  Charities also put on big events and celebrations in efforts to spread the knowledge and wealth of a cause and its founders as potlatching also offers big efforts and parties to spread wealth and services.

In the average life of my wealthy family friends I do not see the generosity and spread of wealth among them toward others.  We were asked the question, “What roles might huge mansions/homes, lavish parties, and luxury cars, for example, have other than flaunting wealth?” In these situations I see the rich as more of a community and they are sharing resources among each other. Other than donations and charity, there is not much being done to help outside their wealthy community. The mansions, parties, and luxurious life style is used to distinguish them from others and let their wealth be known to others. Their wealth is used to contribute to their own happiness. The social clubs and political and economic networks that they belong to are again in their own wealthy community. You see the wealthy class society at the county club, not the local public gym. Money is power in our society and is not distributed without justified cause or returned favors or recognition. The commonality in this between the wealthy community and potlatching is that potlatching brought more prestige onto the host as does when the wealthy contribute outside their community through things such as charities.

 I think the idea that the middle class is growing smaller and that there has grown more separation between the rich and the poor shows that Americans may favor competition and social prestige at the expense of society’s overall social and environmental well-being. I do think charities are a great way of distributing wealth to the needy, but I think it should be a more common practice to be a continual distribution of wealth. If more and more wealthy people and people even in just a comfortable life style gave to charities and donated more time and efforts to those in desperate need for your efforts, there would be less people in desperate need.  If the charities were less about the person promoting them and more about the actual cause and gaining more involvement I thing they would be more effective.

By having money more evenly dispersed instead of the rich getting richer and the poor growing poorer I think our society would be more effective. More people would be able to contribute to our society and in turn our economy would be able to grow in its efforts.

Día de Todos los Santos

While my favorite holiday of all is October 31 because it encapsulates so many different meanings and celebrations for every culture and society around the world, my second favorite holiday is celebrated the day after Halloween.  This particular holiday goes by several different names, but it is best known in North America as El Dia de los Muertos or "Day of the Dead".  This name is derived from the Mexican holiday meant to be a celebration and remembrance of those deceased loved ones, and it is a syncretistic holiday that melds pre-Columbian and Catholic traditions.  This holiday is celebrated in a variety of incarnations among cultures around the globe.  While I have never had the opportunity to celebrate a traditional Mexican Day of the Dead holiday, I did, several years ago, have the opportunity to celebrate the Chilean version, known as Día de Todos los Santos, and today's post is focused on my personal description of those experiences:

In 2009, I was in Chile in order to conduct research related to my doctoral thesis.  I was living in Arica, Chile, at the time, and the end of October/beginning of November fell on a weekend.  I had spent Halloween day and night with various friends, celebrating and carrying on, and despite having been up late at a party of four young women who were teaching English abroad that I met and became friends with, I awoke the next morning early because I had heard that a version of El Dia de los Muertos was celebrated in Chile and I wanted the opportunity to experience that aspect of the culture.  I had previously asked the girls if they wanted to go but they were too tired, so I ventured out on my own.  I went down to the big cemetery that was located in the downtown, which also happened to be the only cemetery I knew about in town, and I was a bit taken aback by what I saw.  Yes, there were a lot of people in the cemetery; graves were adorned with pictures, candles, and so much more; and people were huddled around the graves of lost loved ones, but it was quiet.  Everyone was quiet.  No one was talking.  People were looking at me like I was an alien or I had sprouted a second head (only one of which maybe applied in that circumstance).  I felt like I was interrupting something sacred and that I should leave.  I snapped a few photos of graves that were not being visited, continued my walk through the cemetery grounds, and then departed back to the hostel I was staying at. 

On my way back, I remembered that there was another cemetery in the next town over and thought it might be interesting to visit that one, too.  I mulled over this decision while eating lunch.  My experience at the city cemetery was pretty harsh and I didn't like that feeling of intrusion that I was left with.  But I mustered up my courage, figured I only live once, and decided to take a collectivo (taxi cab with a set route) down to the cemetery.  I walked down to the place where it would be easiest to catch my collectivo and was pleasantly surprised to find rows of buses, and they were all going down to the cemetery.  I paid my fare, got on the bus, and headed down to the cemetery, which was nice since I didn't have to climb up the hill to get to it.  My experience this time around was so much different from that in the city cemetery.  There were vendors selling items ranging from cemetery wreaths, food, jewelry, flowers, etc., there were mariachi bands available for hire to play to the dead, everyone was smiling and carrying on, and at least one man offered to share his beer with me (I declined, by the way).  Everyone was much more willing and desiring of their photos being taken.  I was invited to join celebrations with the living and heard stories they told of their deceased loved ones.  There was a group of Catholic priests at the entrance of the cemetery providing mass to anyone who desired it, and there was a small group of people receiving it.  Overall, this experience more closely resembled the tales I had heard about the Mexican Day of the Dead, and overall, it was an enjoyable experience. 

Catholic Priests providing Mass

Graves of cremated individuals.

Close up of cremation internment.

Panoramic view of the San Miguel de Azapa cemetery.

Celebrating life.

This man was the one who offered me some beer.  He offered some to this loved one, as well, by pouring the beer onto the ground by the grave.

More Photos and Videos can be found here at my original Chilean travel blog!

Many individuals from my two cultures, German and American, have a hard time understanding the purpose of such rituals.  Death is such a private thing in my cultures.  It is not something that people seek, desire, or want to experience.  As someone who has experienced far too much death over my short lifetime, I understand that sentiment completely, but I awoke the next morning early, celebrations such as El Dia de los Muertos and Día de Todos los Santos are not about celebrating death.  They are about remembering the lives of those you've lost and focusing on those good times.  Sharing with them, although they are dead, your life that you are now living.  It really does instill in one that life is precious and should be lived to the fullest.  It's a different mindset and different way of understanding the dichotomy of life and death, one that I personally find much more satisfying and fulfilling.

This post is dedicated to all the special people that I have loved and lost over the years.  You have not and will never be forgotten.  Until we meet again...