E.T. Go Home! Debunking Alien Mythos in Archaeology

E.T.

Lilo & Stitch.

Coneheads.

District 9.

Predator.

All of these popular movies have one thing in common: they are all based on aliens, or extra-terrestrial beings that come from faraway places in the universe.  The mythos surrounding aliens are numerous, with a variety of ideas about aliens existing throughout many Western cultures.  There continues to be quite the obsession about aliens, perpetuated by popular television shows dedicated to their discovery and understanding.  One such show, Ancient Aliens, focuses specifically on archaeological studies to demonstrate the lengthy existence of aliens from pre-history to modern times.  But how valid is the information alleged by this show?  Does archaeological evidence support the existence of aliens?  Today’s blog post is dedicated to debunking three popular myths about aliens in relation to archaeology: aliens among us, alien landing strips, & an alien mummy.

Alien Myth 1: Aliens Among Us

For several millennia there were humans across the globe that practiced what is known as artificial cranial modification (ACM), which is the purposeful reshaping of the skull to transform the natural cranial form.  Cranial shapes varied with some ACM styles creating a cone shaped elongation of the skull and others creating the appearance of a stunted and bulbous appearance to the sides of the skull (Figure 1).  The alien-like appearance of several of the ACM forms have led some to believe that ACM was completed by many as a means of mimicking the appearance of alien visitors who they came in contact with.     

Figure 1: ACM Styles (Images after Blom, 2005)

It is unclear what specifically initiated this cross-cultural practice of ACM.  This uncertainty is used by some to support the idea of contact between ancient humans and aliens.  There are, however, some ideas and supporting evidence to explain why some cultures began practicing ACM and it was not due to alien contact.  According to the Popol Vuh, a Post-Classic Mayan text that contains the religious narratives of the Maya people (akin to the Christian Bible or Muslim Koran), the ancient Maya were instructed by their gods to manipulate their skulls into the shape of corn, which was based on the belief that the gods created humans out of corn.  Some scholars believe that ancient Egyptians may have begun modifying their skulls in order to mimic the appearance of the elongated skull of the Pharaoh Akhenaten.  Akhenaten may have suffered from Marfan’s syndrome, which caused him to have an elongated skull, and based on Egyptian iconography it is believed that many Egyptian citizens followed suit to honor their god king.  These are just two hypotheses that exist to explain the inception of ACM practices, and these may be clues as to why other cultures began to practice ACM: be it to mimic the natural world around them or the pathological conditions of their leaders or prominent members.  There are logical explanations for this practice, and jumping straight to the alien conclusion is unnecessary and farfetched.   Therefore, this alien myth is

Image Source: Meme Center

Alien Myth 2: Alien Landing Strips

The Nasca Lines are a series of geoglyphs, or drawings imprinted on the earth.  The Nasca Lines are located in southern Peru and date from 200 to 600 years ago, when the Nasca culture existed in the region.  The Nasca Lines depict 300 figures, ranging from natural fauna (e.g. primates and spiders) to geometric shapes (e.g. spirals and triangles).  The series of geometric shapes and one anomalous shape dubbed the “astronaut” (Figure 2) led Erich von Daniken to conclude that the Nasca people created these geoglyphs as landing strips for and communication with extra-terrestrials.

Figure 2: The Astronaut, Nasca Lines (Google Images)

 As you can imagine von Daniken’s hypothesis is not a popular one among archaeological scholars, who have dedicated years of scientific study to why the Nasca Lines were created.  While no definitive conclusion as to their purpose has been reached there are several strong hypotheses that currently exist.  Many of these hypotheses focus on the religious significance of the Nasca Lines, associating them with the existence of a past cult dedicated to the acquisition of water.  Southern Peru is home to the Atacama Desert, which has been and continues to be the world’s driest desert, so water is scarce.  Therefore it is believed that the Nasca Lines were used in rituals to bring water to the region.  Other scholars believe that the Nasca Lines were instead used to designate trade routes, particularly between highland and coastal inhabitants.  The figures depicted in the Nasca Lines resemble other geoglyphs found in other nearby regions, specifically in northern Chile.  Although these other geoglyphs are not as grand in scale but are still quite large they are strongly associated with designating trade networks as they can be seen from a great distance.  Further study of the Nasca Lines is ongoing and more and more evidence is being uncovered daily, which is narrowing the motivations for their creation and purpose.  Based on these reasonable explanations and continued study of the Nasca Lines, there remains little support of the Nasca Lines being associated with extra-terrestrials of any sort, and therefore this myth is

Image Source: Meme Center

Alien Myth 3: Alien Mummy

A little over a decade ago a small humanoid mummy was discovered in the Atacama Desert by Oscar Munoz (Figure 3).  The mummy was no more than six inches in length and nicknamed “Ata”.  It had a large, cone shaped head and lithe frame, which resembles several modern day descriptions of aliens.  The physical appearance of the mummy led many to conclude that it was that of an alien, but several anthropological and biological scholars believed that there was a more reasonable explanation for “Ata”, hypothesizing it was a premature and spontaneous aborted child, an infant with a severe malformation, or a South American primate.  

Figure 3: "Ata", The Presumed "Alien" Mummy of the Atacama Desert (Image Source: Bryner, 2013)

Unfortunately, the mystery had to wait at least a decade to be solved because the field of genetics was not prepared to adequately test the DNA for this ancient mummy, but in 2013 scholars published the results of their genetic analyses, which concluded that “Ata” was indeed human, not alien.  But that was not the only piece of evidence revealed by these studies.  Scholars further affirmed that the mummy was that of a 6 to 8 year old child who suffered from some unknown malformations.  Further study of “Ata” is ongoing in order to conclude what led to his or her death and small size that is abnormal for the age of death.  Therefore, this alien myth is unequivocally    

Image Source: Meme Center

Bibliography
 

Blackwood B, Danby PM.  1955.  A study of artificial cranial deformation in New Britain.  Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 85: 173-191.

Blom D.  2005.  Embodying borders: human body modification and diversity in Tiwanaku society.  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 1-24.

Brain R. 1979.  The Decorated Body.  Hutchinson: London.

Bryner, J.  2013. "Teensy alien-looking skeleton from Chile poses a medical mystery."  LiveScience.

Dingwall EJ. 1931. Artificial Cranial Deformation: A Contribution to the Study of Ethnic Mutilation.  John Bale and Sons and Danielsson, Ltd.: London.

DiscoverPeru.com

Weiss P.  1961.  Osteología Cultural, Prácticas Cefálicas: 2da Parte, Tipología de alas Deformaciones Cefálicas -- Estudio Cultural de los Tipos Cefálicos y de Algunas Enfermedades Oseas.  Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos: Peru.

Getting Into Your Genes: Explaining Mendelian Genetics & Punnett Squares

Genetics is the study of the mechanisms of inheritance, which broadly encompasses all sorts of topics.  Mendelian Genetics simply refers to the mechanism of inheritance between parent and offspring.  Tthe focus of today’s blog post: exploring and explaining Mendelian Genetics and (what many students loathe, although I love) Punnett Squares. 

Genetics is the study of the mechanisms of inheritance, but what exactly does that mean?  It means that people who study genetics are concerned with how organisms become what they are.  You may have heard it over and over again, but each individual is made up a series of DNA and genes.  DNA, which is short for the tongue twitching term deoxyribonucleic acid, is simply a molecule that carries our genetic code.  Our genetic code, or blue print of what we are supposed to look like and function (i.e. carnivores, herbivores, human, animal, plant, etc.), is coded for via our genes, which make up the building blocks of who and what we are.  You can think of DNA and genes in layman’s terms in the following way:

Figure 1: DNA is the blueprint and Genes are the pieces.  Image Source: Schroeder

The DNA is the instruction manual, while the genes are the pieces for that the instruction manual.  It is sort of like a model airplane or car or IKEA furniture (and just as frustrating sometimes) (Figure 1).  Depending on what type of DNA (instruction manual) you have, you may have a model for an animal or a plant, and more specifically a fish vs a goat or a rose vs poison ivy.  The genes are the pieces of the organism that dictate individual variations in the organism.  Let us take a rose for an example: the genes (or in simple terms, building blocks) dictate the type of fragrance, color, size, number of petals, etc. of the rose.   

Now Mendelian Genetics refers to mechanisms of inheritance between parent and offspring, and the term was coined by its discoverer, Gregor Mendel.  Now Gregor Mendel was not some award winning scientist.  He was simply a monk who had an interest in science and who spent his spare time gardening.  Through gardening and harvesting peas he began to notice that the plants had different colors of flowers (purple vs. white) and different seed coats (smooth vs. wrinkled).   He was inspired by this observation to breed the peas in his garden.  He soon discovered that the specific colors and seed coats (both different traits) he observed were passed down differently from parent to offspring, and these specific traits, which we now know as genes, were passed down through parent to offspring based on what the parents had available to them in their genetic code.  In other words, whatever genes the parents have are what will be passed down to the offspring, meaning a parent can only pass down what they have and not anything they do not have.  

Now each individual carries two sets of genes for each trait that they have, and the reason for this is because a male and female parent must contribute genes to produce offspring, which is from the female parent providing the egg and the male parent providing the sperm.  The sperm and egg cells (referred to in biological terms as gametes) carry copies of the parent’s genes that will be passed to the offspring, and the union of the sperm and egg produce a whole organism or an offspring.  Please see Genotypes vs. Phenotypes for more information regarding expression and genetic composition.

Now because of the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel we can predict, based on the physical appearance and genetic composition of parents, what the offspring will look like, and this is done through a process referred to as Punnett Squares.  Punnett Squares are used to determine potential inheritance of offspring of two parents, and basically it takes the genetic composition of each parent and demonstrates the potential genetic composition outcomes of the offspring.  It does this by demonstrating a 4 x 4 probability, thereby producing a 25% chance per square, of what the offspring could look like. 

Figure 2: Genes/Jeans of Parents (Image Source: Shutterstock)

To demonstrate, let us go back to the beginning and think about what happens to produce offspring.  The male and the female each have their own set of genes, which are represented as pairs of blue jeans in Figure 2.  I chose this analogy because you have to remember that each individual has two genes per trait, and blue jeans have two legs.  The male and the female meet and they decide (knowingly or unknowingly) to reproduce.  To produce the offspring their bodies have produced their corresponding gametes (males produce sperm and females produce eggs).  Each of these gametes contains copies of one gene from those pairs of genes from each parent.  But since both parents carry two genes per traits, how do we know which gene is passed on to the offspring?  Through a Punnett Square analysis!

We know that each parent can only supply one gene to their offspring, so we can think of the gametes (sperm or egg) as being one pant leg, each representing one of the genes contained in the pair for each trait.  But we still do not know which pant leg the offspring will get.  So what we do is we put each pant leg in the Punnett Square as shown in the Figure 3:

Figure 3: Punnett Square 1.0.  Note: Males are typically at the top of the Punnett Square, whereas females are at the side, which is how it is presented here and why there is a blue vs red line (for male and female, respectively). This is not standard and you can invert the male and female placement.

Each of the mini squares (of which there are four in total) represents a 25% chance of what the offspring will look like because each parent can potentially give each offspring one of the two genes each parent carries, leading to a possibility of four outcomes because each parent can only give one gene to their offspring.  Now when Punnett Squares are done for professional purposes one does not actually use jeans to represent genes.  Instead, genes are represented by letters, so an actual Punnett Square would look like the following (Figure 4):

Figure 4: Punnett Square 2.0

Figure 4: Punnett Square 2.0.  For an explanation of the letters please go to the Genotypes vs. Phenotypes post.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how we predict what potentially the offspring will look like.  Now it is important to remember a couple of things about Punnett Squares: They only demonstrate the probability of what your offspring could look like for an individual trait.  They cannot predict specifically how exactly your offspring will look like.  As noted in the previous post, Brief Review of Genetics, a few factors are at play when it comes to physical expression of traits, specifically those that are environmental in nature.  But Punnett Squares are useful in predicting what your offspring may look like or what genes they may have. 

References:

Feder, Kenneth and Park M. Human Antiquity: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archeology, McGraw-Hill.

Spotlight on Students: Gender Assignment

The following post features exemplary student work from my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology students.  They were tasked with discussing a gender across cultures.  I hope you enjoy learning about gender.

Laura Redl

Anth 101: 1005: Introduction to Cultural Anthropology

Across the world all different cultures and societies practice different gender roles, norms, and identities for females and males. The Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambui of the Papua New Guinea all exhibit different gender cultural norms and ideals, signifying that these are not inborn characteristics but are instead shaped through society. All three cultures differ greatly from each other and from American norms. Through the studying and reading of the ethnographic studies and different scholarly journals of anthropologists around the world I learned that gender and gender roles are extremely important to society and do not have to go by American standards to receive respect.

The Arapesh of Papua New Guinea were people who shared the same characteristics and ideals about each sex but were very different than the common ideals Americans place on males and females. The Arapesh were interested in little violence, and both sexes focused on raising the children of the village in a loving and caring environment (Yans). This culture very much appreciated child bearing and the challenges in raising children; their main focus was to be maternal individuals so that their children grew up in a loving home. The identities of each sex were very much blended and mixed to meet the same standard (Lipset). Quick sex was feared, rape unknown, and it was uncommon that men had a desire for other women outside their marriage because men did not have the aspiration to lead or boast (Lipset).

The common roles for men and women in America lie at complete opposite sides of the spectrum. Men are supposed to be aggressive and manly in a sense of not being afraid to get what they want and taking initiative. Women, on the other hand, are supposed to be fragile and nurturing. The contrast in Arapesh and America even made an impact on the two sexes studying them, Margaret Mead and Reo Fortune. Mead greatly appreciated the love and admiration for child bearing, whereas Fortune got upset with the culture and refused to agree with their maternal expectation, saying that the men were actually naturally violent (Sanday). This is an example of projecting our expectations and ideals on another culture because we want to believe the American ways are the most correct.

            The Mundugumor of Papua New Guinea were the complete opposite of the Arapesh and demonstrated an appreciation for being warlike, had many wives, and despised child bearing and the raising children (Yans). This culture was dominated by the men and men held the central role and example for what both sexes should exhibit. The men were supposed to be violent, fearless, and fierce, influencing the role for women to encourage fighting and not want to be nurturing or care for their children (Lipset). Again, we are faced with a culture that blends the two roles for men and women, whereas in America we aim for men and women to have very different gender identities and values. In Mundugumor, children were annoyances and child bearing was despised, men hated when their wives would become pregnant, and women did not want to raise them in a loving manner, causing the children to learn quickly they must be tough (Lipset). The reason that the child bearing was so despised was because the women and multiple wives of these men were their main source of labor, causing men to fight to have more wives and not wanting them to get pregnant and delay work (Lipset). This patrilineal society and use of women as workers causes maternal instincts and norms to be unappreciated and unwanted. Men were the head of the society and women wanted to please them influencing them to also resent child bearing and causing them to resent the children and being unloving. In America we have a better appreciation for child bearing because we realize we need women to have children in order to survive and therefore place more recognition on women and maternal values.

            The Tchambui of Papua New Guinea demonstrated the opposite gender norms for men and women that Americans have. The women were very businesslike, handled finances, and dressed the men and children, but the men were catty, liked shopping, and were not aggressive at all (Yans). The women held the most important jobs in the society because they took what was thought to be the main job, trading. Without the women trading the society would not succeed or survive so men had to be very appreciative and grateful for these women. The women held the real position of power in the society which meant that they were the dominate figures (Lipset). The men were always gossiping and suspicious of each other, they had no desire to be aggressive and were constantly trying to give the women what they wanted (Lipset). This is the opposite of American gender norms because the women are supposed to be the gossipy and unaggressive sex, and the males are supposed to be the breadwinners and leaders. The men are expected to get the jobs in society and the women want to please the men.

            The views of the different societies and gender roles in the Papua New Guinea were so different than the views of Americans because the men’s and women’s roles were all held at different levels of need. The women in the Arapesh were seen as dominant because they were the ones who could keep the society surviving and so their nurturing and loving roles were very much appreciated and desired. The men wanted to be like the women because they were so grateful for having them there to have children. The Mundugumor favored the men because they help the highest positions in society in their extensive trade network and leading the society. Women wanted to work for men and cause them to be successful, so they hated when they had to have children and resented raising their children. The Tchambui of the Papua New Guinea had opposite sex roles of Americans. The women were the breadwinners and would provide for the family yet the men were suspicious and catty. The women dominated and controlled daily resources, so men wanted to please the women and keep them happy.

            By taking a deeper look at the different societies views on gender roles and identities I was able to understand that females and males do not have innate norms or values for the characteristics each sex should exhibit. If so many variations were possible, then sex roles were not inborn and masculine and feminine behavior was determined by culture (Yans). The roles of men and women can be shaped by whatever their roles are in society and how valued their roles seem to those in the culture. I gained a deeper understanding that both gender roles and both characteristics of men and women can be valued and it does not have to be dependent on their sex. Women can act as Americans might think would to be manly and be highly appreciated and men can act as we might think of as girly and remain important to the society. Men and women do not need to act in a way our society deems “correct” in order to be a success and appreciated.

Works Cited

Lipset, David. "Regarding Sex and Temperament: Margaret Mead's Sepik Triptych and Its Ethnographic Critics." Anthropological Quarterly 76.4. Academic Search Main Edition, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 2003.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. "Margaret Mead's View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies." American Anthropological Association 82.2 (1980): 340-48. Print.

Yans-McLaughlin, Virginia." WAYF | Alexander Street Press. Alexander Street Press LLC, 1996. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.