Anthropological Holism in Action: Using Linguistic Study to Inform Archaeological Interpretation

Anthropologists often time specialize in one of the four anthropological subfields, but most typically receive a holistic (comprehensive) education as their base in their undergraduate degree programs.  There is a push from there for specialization, which is odd given the importance and emphasis of the holistic nature of anthropology.  Today, many anthropologists are returning to their roots and embracing interdisciplinary research, most often combing two of the subfields into one (e.g. bioarchaeology, biocultural, etc.)  This blog post will address one such combination: linguistic anthropology and archaeology.

Linguistic anthropology is the study of language, whereas archaeology is the study of past cultures.  Both subfields focus on very different aspects of understanding what it means to be human, but they are complementary as they both focus on aspects of the human past, specifically through historical linguistics and the very nature of archaeological research.  Therefore, there has been some push among anthropological scholars to unite these two subdisciplines for the purposes of enriching the study of the past.  Several archaeological-linguistic studies have been completed since the 1970s, although the majority have focused on using linguistic and archaeological studies to understand the origins of modern ethnic groups.  There have been additional studies, though, that have taken different approaches.  One such study among Scandinavian groups used linguistics to understand and interpret archaeological sites.  Through the study of myths concerning manhood scholars were able to make sense of specific archaeological sites that contained a number of sacrificed dogs and wolves.  Without this linguistic evidence the archaeologists were at a loss of why these sites existed, so the inclusion of the linguistic evidence helped them better interpret the past.  Other studies have followed this same course of study by using linguistic evidence to understand aspects of the past that may no longer be recoverable.

Unfortunately, very few anthropological scholars (be they archaeologists or linguists) actually embark on this unified research.  Part of this is the push to keep the subdisciplines separate, which discourages such collaboration and prevents an individual to partake in this research on their own since one individual may not have the skills from multiple disciplines.  These problems are easily overcome, but additional problems are not.  The biggest issue is that the languages spoken today are most likely not the same or similar to those spoken in the past, meaning there are limitations on how much modern language can be used to interpret the past.  Related to this there are also issues of changing values, so the values of today may not be the same as the past, further complicating interpretations of the past.  Furthermore, linguistic studies may not be feasibly used for groups that had and currently have no written language. 

On a positive note where there is a will there is a way.  While combined archaeological and linguistic studies may not be feasible in all cases there is evidence that the ones that have been conducted have been successful.  This demonstrates the utility in such studies, and as the will among anthropologists grows there should be an increase in the number of these studies occurring.  The outcome of this is further enriched understandings of what it means to be human, which fulfills the ultimate goals of anthropological study.

References

Blench, R. 2006. Archaeology and Language: Methods and Issues, in A Companion to Archaeology (ed J. Bintliff), Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA.

 

Powell, E. A. 2013.  “Wolf Rites of Winter.”  Archaeology Magazine.  September/October.  

Saarikivi, J. and M. Lavento.  2009.  “Linguistics and Archaeology: A Critical View of an Interdisciplinary Approach with Reference to the Prehistory of Northern Scandinavia.”  Networks, Interaction and Emerging Identities in Fennoscandia and Beyond 13-16: 177-216.

Teofilo.  2012.  “The Roles of Linguistics and Archaeology.”  Gambler’s House: Chaco Canyon, Its World, and Ours.

 

Wencel, M.  2011.  “Making Archaeology Speak-Archaeology and Linguistics.”  Popular Archaeology 3.

 

Big Boned: A Review of the Paranthropus Genus

Figure 1: Paranthropus aethiopicus

 
One of the things humans across several different cultures often times wonder about is where we (humans or individuals) come from.  This is a central question to paleoanthropologists who study human origins.  Through the study of the biological lineages of human ancestry there are several twists and turns in species that have long gone extinct but who may have (or may not have) contributed to who and how we identify Homo sapiens today.  Today's blog post will discuss one genus of potential human ancestors: the Paranthropus genus.

The Paranthropus genus refers to a group of hominid species characterized as having small brains, robust (i.e. large) cranial features who subsisted on an exclusively vegetarian diet.  These species were at one time classified as Australopithecines (and sometimes still are), but because of their unique robust cranial features some scholars believe they should be classified as a separate genus.  If you were to look into them further you will want to be aware of this so you do not miss out on information as not all scholars agree to the Paranthropus designation and therefore still refer to them as Australopithecines.

Figure 2: Paranthropus robustus

 
Paranthropus species are found primarily in the Lake Turkana region of Kenya, although one (Paranthropus robustus) is found in South Africa.  They are all characterized by sharing several cranial features, including postorbial constriction (a narrowing of bone behind the eye sockets, which is common in nonhuman primates), large molar teeth and smaller canines, exaggerated sagittal crests (a boney ridge, or mohawk as I like to refer to it, along the midline of the skull), broad cheeks that flare out, and a flattened/dished face.  Their large cranial features, particularly their molars, made them specifically adapted to eating specialized vegetarian diets that other contemporaneous hominids could not eat.  They subsisted largely on hard nuts, roots, and other vegetative matter that we, modern humans, cannot easily eat raw or without some sort of assistance (e.g. a nut cracker or by cooking the food to soften it).   

There are three known Paranthropus species: Paranthropus aethiopicus (Figure 1), Paranthropus robustus (Figure 2), and Paranthropus boisei (Figure 3).   To the untrained eye there are very few differences that distinguish them from each other, but there are actually very distinct differences that allow one to identify who they are and how they are different.  P. aethiopicus has the smallest brain, largest sagittal crest, and most prognathic (jutting forward) face of the three.  Despite his name P. robustus is not the most robust of all the species, although P. robustus does have some of the heaviest jaws.  Plus, as previously mentioned it is the only species found in South Africa (based on current knowledge).  P. boisei was actually named after the investor who assisted Louis and Mary Leakey discover it, has the largest geographical range, and is considered "hyperrobust" in all of its cranial and facial features. 

Figure 3: Paranthropus boisei

So there you have it.  Some information on the Paranthropus genus, as well as details to help you be able to differentiate them.  If you are interested in learning more about these species please check out this excellent review video.  Also, for those who may be wondering how do these species fit into our human lineage I can only say that we are still trying to figure that completely out.  There are some scholars who believe they are an evolutionary dead end, and others who believe at least one of them added to our gene pool and evolution to produce us as we are today.  As more data is collected and more discoveries made we will hopefully have a more definitive answer about how these species fit into our family tree.

References

Jurmain, Robert, Kilgore, Lynn, Trevathan, Wenda, Ciochon, Russell L. Introduction to Physical

Anthropology. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 2014. Print.

Giving Is Receiving: The Anthropology of Reciprocity

In every culture around the world there is some sort of system of exchange.  There are various types of exchange across the world's cultures, and today's blog post will address one type of exchange: reciprocity.  Reciprocity is exchange between social equals.  It can occur in three distinct ways: generalized reciprocity, balanced reciprocity, and negative reciprocity.  Each of these types will be addressed further herein.

Generalized reciprocity is most common type of reciprocity.  It involves two or more parties/individuals, typically who have some sort of close relationship.  They give with no specific expectation of exchange but with a reliance upon similar opportunities being available to the giver.  This is most similar to Western cultural versions of doing someone a favor or buying each other coffee with the expectation that the other person will eventually repay the original buyer.  Generalized reciprocity is common among foraging groups who will provide goods and services to those in need with the expectation of a return of those goods and services when there is future need. 

Balanced reciprocity involves more distantly related partners.  It involves giving with the expectation of equivalent (but not necessarily immediate) exchange.  This is most similar to our market exchange system where people will pay money for specific goods-be they received now or in the future.  This type of reciprocal exchange is common in tribal societies.  It has serious ramifications for the relationship of trading partners if there is ever a feeling of unequal exchange or a bad deal being made.

The last type of is negative reciprocity.  It involves exchange(s) among very distant trading partners and is characterized by each partner attempting to maximize profit and an expectation of immediate exchange.  This is commonly found in market economies, such as among bidding wars among individuals or businesses, and it can also be found in the silent barter system between Mbuti foragers and horticulturalist neighbors.  Ultimately, this type of exchange is characterized by a “winner,” or someone who feels like they got a great deal, and a “loser,” someone who feels like they lost out on the deal.

So next time you find yourself in a system of exchange consider what type of exchange you are participating in.  For example, if you get someone a birthday gift do you give it with the assumption that the receiver will give you a gift on your birthday (generalized reciprocity), or are you getting some thing immediately for that exchange (e.g. a valued friendship or a promotion at work), which would be balanced reciprocity.  Will you feel slighted if you never receive a gift back (e.g. negative reciprocity)?  Just one simple act can be defined in many multiple reciprocal ways.

References

Welsch, R.L. & L.A. Vivanco.  (2015).  Cultural Anthropology: Asking Questions About Humanity.  Oxford University Press.