A Hot Cup of Joe

In addition to cranial surgery, another artificial modification of the human skull present in the archaeological record, which is perhaps better known, is skull shaping. Like trephination, this practice of modifying the shape of the human skull is present on every inhabited continent and at various periods in human history and prehistory^[1]. It even appears in the archaeological record of Neanderthals^[2]. Like trephination, several hypotheses exist to offer explanations why this practice was done. And, like trephination, the likelihood of a given hypothesis seems to have more or less probability depending upon the culture being examined.

The human skull can be artificially modified either intentionally or unintentionally. Unintentional occurrences usually involve the use of cradle boards, a device used by parents, usually mothers, to manage infants while they perform their own day to day tasks. It can be stood up near the mother or worn on her back. The constant pressure on the occipital bone, especially if the habit of binding the infant to the board is employed, causes lateral growth of the skull and “a permanent effect on the skull.”

A recent study in the Andes examined the cultural aspects of intentional cranial modification in Peruvian society, focusing on regional differentiations between the Moquegua and Katari valleys^[3]. It was found that, while the fronto-occipital type of cranial deformation was culturally preferred in the Moquegua valley, it was the annular-oblique type that found favor among those in the neighboring Katari valley. The actual presence of cranial modification between the two regions presented no statistical difference. Both valleys were equally likely to practice cranial deformation. The researchers found, however, that when the type of deformation was controlled for, the two valleys completely favored one over the other. It was also discovered that in the capital city of Tiwanaku in the highlands, both types were present. Previous researchers considered the difference in forms at Tiwanaku as representative of differences in class with the annular form belonging to a priestly class. The newer research brings this into question and demonstrates the importance of bioarchaeological approaches to examining social complexity and culture in the ancient world.

Beatrice Blackwood and P. M. Danby (1955) investigated the intentional cranial deformations performed by the people on the island of New Britain in Papua New Guinea. There, the Arawe people practiced head-binding of infants to produce a very characteristic elongation of the cranial vault which varies depending upon the method by which the binding materials are applied to the infant skull^[4].

For the Arawe, the practice was “purely an aesthetic one” and had no magico-religious or class motivations associated with it. There were no rituals or or ceremonies involved and appeared to be done simply because it was found aesthetically pleasing

Another inspiration for in vivo cranial modification might be ancestor worship. Perhaps one of the best known instances of ancestor worship that involves skull modification comes from Jericho in the Near East. Fletcher et al^[5] describe in detail the plastered skulls of Jericho and make a novel correlation between antemortem and postmortem deformations. The skulls they examine originate from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) B period of the Levant at about 10,500 – 8,700 years ago. One of the skulls, in the British Museum was one of seven plastered skulls recovered by Kathleen Kenyon from the in 1953. The PPNB is an important period of human history because it represents a transition from a foraging lifeway to a more sedentary, agricultural one along with a marked increase in population densities and expansions within the Levant.

Caches of skulls like the one that Kenyon recovered in Jericho have been found at other sites, their facial features remodeled in plaster and often painted with cowrie shells added to represent eyes. There is no evidence that the individuals who had their skulls plastered were of high status or elites of the settlements. There is, however, evidence of burials associated with the settlements which had skulls removed while other bodies were dumped unceremoniously in waste pits also associated with the settlements. The number of burials found are not sufficient enough in number to account for the population sizes of these settlements^[6][7][8] .

The researchers (Fletcher et al) suggest that the removal, decoration and curation of artificially modified skulls was not a mortuary practice but, rather, a life practice in which these carefully plastered and painted skulls were ritual symbols of the relationship between life and death. To get to this conclusion, they demonstrated that the skulls, thought only to be modified postmortem, were also modified antemortem. Fletcher et al used radiographic analysis to examine the skulls and show that there existed evidence for in vivo cranial modification due to a varied thickness of the inner table of the cranial vault. In non-modified skulls, this thickness is uniform and consistent, but in skulls that have been modified, the thickness varies. They also note the painted stripes across the parietal bones of one skull, which might represent the method of binding the cranium.

Its possible that the skulls were chosen for their morphology – the preference was for crania with “low wide faces and broad vaults,” which happens to be present in many of the culturally modified skulls found elsewhere. While its possible that skulls are chosen based on their sex and part of the veneration of elder males, the fact that plastering obscures characteristics for determining sex means this may not actually be the case. In addition, evidence for the plastering of female and child skulls seems to refute this sort of ancestor cult hypothesis.

Along with the radiographic evidence that the plastered skulls were modified in vivo, there also exists cultural evidence for the aesthetic appeal for certain head shapes in Neolithic iconography by way of figurines that exhibit elongated skulls. Female figurines excavated from Tell Ramad depict an elongated form and at the Late Neolithic to Middle Chalcolithic site of Coga Mish in Iran, three figurines found there were of human heads that exhibit a round frontal view, but are clearly flattened and elongated in the back, consistent with in vivo cranial modification. Indeed they each have a painted black band encircling the head which could represent bandage bindings. Evidence of skull shaping is also present at Ganj darra, Ali Kosh, Choga Safid, and Choga Mish which each produced skulls where the individuals had undergone shaping in vivo by use of bindings as infants and were variously male and female. At Ganj Darra and Choga Safid, each skull excavated had indications of intentional cranial modification. This, when considered that not all skulls were selected for burial, seems to indicate a preference for skulls modified in vivo when it came time for burial, caching and postmortem modifications like plastering.

As Fletcher et al pointed out, the inclusion of females and children as the recipients of antemortem and postmortem modifications would seem to disassociate the practices from ancestor worship. Fletcher et al conclude that, while ancestor worship as an explanation would appear inadequate, the “generalized veneration of ancestral ties may reflect attempts to cope with the social and economic stresses associated with the changing economic and subsistence strategies of the PPNB and the growth of permanent large-scale centres such as Jericho [and] it becomes easier to accept that children a well adults could have assumed a significant role in linking living communities with their past.” The modification of the human skull in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic may very well have been a way of ensuring heredity and kinship within a growing and diversifying population that was becoming increasingly sedentary, which may explain the preference for skulls modified in vivo for postmortem veneration.

Perhaps the former foragers, now agriculturalists, of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic had ancestors within their societies who were considered inspirational leaders and founders of the societies themselves -individuals who were remembered as having skull shapes and sizes that, while not outside the normal range for H. sapiens sapiens, were nonetheless noticeably different. Perhaps, in an attempt to venerate these leaders or founders, or to establish kinship with them, parents began the practice of binding their infants’ heads to ensure this link to the past and to their ancestors. Perhaps something similar can be said for Andean societies in and around Tiwanaku where diversity and ancestry both appeared to be appreciated and venerated. The Arawe, who reported no other reason than aesthetics, may have been creating self-caricatures of an ideal form of an ancestor long forgotten, but still venerated unintentionally.

The true origins of artificial but intentional cranial modifications may never be known or understood and they may, indeed, be as numerous as the number of cultures throughout human history and prehistory that practiced it. But the continued study and attempts to understand this practice can help avoid making unintended assumptions that might affect the conclusions of researchers examining cultures that practiced it. Head shaping may not be a way of exerting dominance over another group or demonstrating elite status; trephination may not simply be a method of releasing spirits and demons.

1. Ortner, Donald J (2003). Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains, 2nd edition. San Diego: Academic Press [↩]
2. Trinkaus, Erik (1982). Artificial Cranial Deformation in the Shanidar 1 and 5 Neandertals. Current Anthropology, 23 (2), 198-199. [↩]
3. Blom, Deborah E. (2005). Embodying borders: human body modification and diversity in Tiwanaku society. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 1-24. [↩]
4. Blackwood, Beatrice; Danby, P.M. (1955). A study of artificial cranial deformation in New Britain. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 85 (1/2), 173-191. [↩]
5. Fletcher, Alexandra; Pearson, Jessica; and Ambers, Janet (2008). The manipulation of social and physical identity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic: radiographic evidence for cranial modification at Jericho and its implications for the plastering of skulls. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18 (3), 309-325. [↩]
6. Meiklejohn, A. Agelarakis, P. A. Akkermans, P. E. L. Smith, and R. Solecki (1992) Artificial Cranial Deformation in the Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic Near East and its Possible Origin: Evidence from Four Sites.” Paléorient 18(2), 83-97.
   [↩]
7. Watkins, Trevor (2005). From foragers to complex societies in southwest Asia. In The Human Past. Chris Scarre, (ed.). London: Thames and Hudson, 200-233. [↩]
8. Hole, Frank; Flannery, Kent V.; Neely, James A. (1969). Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain. An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. [↩]

The practice of artificially modifying the human skull has been a part of human culture as far back as 45,000 years BP^[1], and it has been shown to occur on every inhabited continent . Two primary forms of artificially modifying the human skull include trephination, the deliberate and surgical creation of a hole in the cranial vault, and the application of pressure on the crania of infants or toddlers to reshape the cranial vault from its natural form. Various hypotheses exist to explain the origins and reasons for these practices in human cultures in both the ancient and modern worlds, but none appear to be conclusive, though several do seem to be compelling when reviewed in the light of other archaeological and ethnographic data.

Trephination

Trephination as a practice in prehistory was first noted by E. George Squier in 1865 but has been shown to exist in most inhabited regions of the world and in periods of human history and prehistory as far back as the Neolithic^[2][3]. Trephining is the act of surgically perforating in the skull for perceived therapeutic purposes and the term is often used interchangeably with “trepanation,” however, Ortner makes an effort to differentiate between “trephination” and “trepanation.” The latter refers to the act of creating a perforation by use of an instrument. The former indicates that a section of bone is actually removed from the skull. The term “trepanation” is derived from the Greek term trypan, meaning “to pierce”.

Squier’s Incan skull is one that shows a scraping of the frontal bone in four regions such that a rectangular piece of bone was removed as a result (fig. 1). The instrument used was likely an obsidian or chert blade and the perforation exhibits no indication of healing so the patient very likely died during the procedure. The discovery of this skull created a sensation within the archaeological and historical community, the sentiment at the time creating an expectation that cranial surgery by “primitives” or “savages” would be a complex task far removed from their abilities. Squier’s example was a clear and indisputable example of human ingenuity, knowledge and understanding in the ancient world. It was an unmistakable, intentional modification of a human skull by human hands.

Squier’s discovery inspired and fascinated Paul Broca in France, who was fascinated not only with the idea of pre-Columbian Peruvians performing cranial surgery but with the reason for the surgery to begin with. Broca believed the act of trephination was one that was originally motivated by superstition and an appeasement of the supernatural which he based on observations of contemporary cultures that did so for these reasons.

No clear evidence for the casting out of evil spirits, demons, devils or other superstitious motivations appear to exist in the archaeological record to date and the idea remains an hypothesis, though one that may be intuitive given the superstitious nature that can exist among human culture as pointed out by Broca. The intuitiveness of the hypothesis is such that it appears in both academic and popular texts and writings. Ronald J. Comer, in his Abnormal Psychology, discusses the idea that South Americans (ostensibly the Inca) used trephination as a supernatural response to severe abnormal behaviors such as hallucinations or melancholia and he goes on to equate the practice to Western exorcisms.

Researchers have analyzed 66 skulls obtained from 11 Cuzco-region burials in Peru, which exhibited 109 trephinations in all^[4]. Most of the methods of trephining these skulls included circular cutting and scraping. They discovered the survival rate among the individuals they analyzed to be 83% evidenced by the well-healed bone of most individuals, some of which exhibited multiple, well-healed trephinations. The key hypothesis Andrushko and Verano set out to test was that use of trephination as a medical treatment as opposed to cultural motivations. What they discovered was that great care was taken to promote healing and prevent infection.

1. Trinkaus, Erik (1982). Artificial Cranial Deformation in the Shanidar 1 and 5 Neandertals. Current Anthropology, 23 (2), 198-199. [↩]
2. Andrushko, Valerie A. and Verano, John W. (2008). Prehistoric trepanation in the Cuzco region of Peru: a view into an ancient Andean practice. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 137, 4-13. [↩]
3. Fernando, Hiram and Finger, Stanley (2002). “Ephraim George Squier’s Peruvian Skull and the Discovery of Cranial Trepanation.” In Trepanation: history, discovery, theory. Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, Christopher Upham Murray Smith (eds.). Taylor and Francis. [↩]
4. Andrushko, Valerie A. and Verano, John W. (2008). Prehistoric trepanation in the Cuzco region of Peru: a view into an ancient Andean practice. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 137, 4-13. [↩]

My friend Jeff Rose is interviewed on a recent BBC2 program. Jeff’s a lithicist who works in Oman on early human sites and his presence on camera is dynamite! Here’s hoping we see more of Jeff Rose on BBC -archaeology can use spokesmen as gifted as he.

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

In the United States, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act» ) mandates special care and treatment of Native American cultural remains, particularly human remains. The single best discussion on the internet that includes the most sources of clickable information that I’ve found on NAGPRA is on Larry J. Zimmerman’s site^[1]. I highly recommend it.

Because there is an expectation (usually) that Native American remains are reburied or returned to their tribes, it isn’t hard to imagine that archaeologists are on the clock from the moment they discover the remains to gather as much data as possible. Eventually the bones will be out of their hands and any opportunity to get a re-look or use them for teaching purposes will be lost.

But there is a way to capture very accurate representations of interesting bones for later analysis or teaching: make detailed cast of the artifact! If you’ve ever been to the dentist to have a crown made, you’ve been the subject of this method yourself. What the dentist did was apply a non-toxic, non-damaging alginate to your tooth to create a mold in which a new, porcelain copy could be made.

To do this with a bone or even a lithic artifact, you’ll need to gather a few, relatively inexpensive materials:

1. Dental alginate (about $10)
2. Casting stone (about $30-45)
3. bowl (free? check your cabinet)
4. non-stick rubber spatula for mixing
5. vibrator (not that kind!)

The process is pretty straight forward, but I can see where some practice could be important.

1. Put alginate powder in the mixing bowl and begin mixing a bit of water a little at a time. The idea is to bring the mix to about the consistency of cake batter. Use the spatula to mix and work the flat edge against the side of the bowl for a couple of minutes, adding water/alginate until you get the right amount/consistency. Keep in mind it sets quick, so don’t dilly-dally.

2. Pour and scrape the alginate into a vessel that will accommodate the object you’re casting (in the cast I show below, I used a disposable, Styrofoam bowl which I trimmed with scissors). Don’t use paper vessels. Use something like Styrofoam or non-stick or you will end up with bits of paper stuck to the cast. Non-stick reusable bowls are good for the environmental-conscious but Styrofoam lets you change the size shape with a knife or scissors.

3. Stick the surface you want a cast of into the alginate, being mindful that you’ll need to remove it. If, for instance, you want to cast a vertebra, you’ll want to do it one plane at a time, otherwise you might damage the mold when you remove it. Also, if there are any areas where the alginate can get behind and “catch” when you remove it (lamellae, osteophytes, etc.), you want to try to position your bone accordingly.

4. Give your alginate time to set. For this, read the label on the particular alginate you purchase. Some will set in under a minute (you have to work very quickly!), some in just a couple of minutes. If you’re casting a lot of samples, you might want the quick-set. Otherwise, I’d recommend the type that take a minute or two. Even if you have to manually hold a bone or lithic in place, this isn’t a terribly long time to wait.

5. Once your alginate is set, work the artifact out of the newly created mold. Rock it back and forth, pull, etc. until it pops from the mold. You should see a very detailed and reversed impression of your artifact.

6. Assuming you’ve cleaned your bowl of the remaining alginate (it cleans quite easily), now you’ll want to mix the stone. Same concept: add what looks like enough stone to fill the mold in the bowl, add water a little at a time, mixing to get the cake-batter consistency. Again, you can add additional water/stone until you get the consistency/amount you need as long as you’re working quick (this, too, sets fairly quickly).

7. Set your mold in its Styrofoam bowl or cup (or whatever) on the vibrator’s platform, turn it on (hold the mold so it won’t slide off) and slowly drip stone into the mold using the spatula. The reason the vibrator is important (and don’t bother doing this unless you have one or are using the more expensive type of stone which doesn’t require vibration) is trapped air in the mix needs to be bubbled to the surface, otherwise the result will be a brittle, crumbly mess. Scoop some stone on the spatula and just let the edge of the spatula touch the edge of the container. What happens next is what geologists call liquifaction: the stone becomes more fluid due to the vibrations and more easily sorts and settles in the mold without trapping air. Air that does get trapped bubbles to the surface rather quickly.

8. Once the mold is filled, and you see no additional bubbles (just a few seconds), go ahead and shut the vibrator off. You can add some extra stone to the top of the container with the alginate mold, so that you can create a nice, flat surface. Just gloop on a few more spatulas of stone mix (no need to vibrate it at this point) and invert a Styrofoam plate on top. Holding it all together, flip it over and let it dry for 1-3 hours. You might want to use a spatula to scrape away an excess that sticks out between the container and the plate. While the stone sets, it’ll feel noticebly warm since there’s a slight exothermic reaction as it sets. Once set, peel away the Styrofoam and gently work the cast away from the flexible dental alginate.

If you’re very lucky, the alginate mold will fare very well and you can, perhaps, get another cast or two out of it. Alginate doesn’t hold together well over time and it’ll loose its shape and form.

Below are two photos of the bone and cast I made. Its of the auricular surface of the right ox cocae of an adult male with Paget’s disease apparent in the skeletal pathology. I cast this particular auricular surface because it was so obviously not consistent with the subject’s age whereas the left auricular surface and both the pubic symphyses were consistent with a male over 45.

Auricular surface of a right ox cocae. Male, 45 yrs+. Asymmetrical appearance to the left auricular surface could be due to Paget's disease.

Cast of the auricular surface to the above

There are many different casting materials other than alginates (which are derived from seaweed and its the sodium alginate NaC₆H₇O₆ which quickly absorbs water which is used). But the level of detail is so good in a cast that it’s almost as good as the real thing. I’m told that scanning electron microscopy can be employed to examine for tool marks, evaluate striations to determine if breaks in bone is ante-, pre-, or post-mortem, etc. Below is a close up of the cast I made so you can see the details.

A close up of the cast of the auricular surface above. note the level of detail possible in using dental alginate & stone casting methods. Click the image to see the full version.

To obtain the materials needed, check your local area for a dental supply store. Dentists are everywhere and they need the stuff! A Google search for “dental supply” came up with a lot of hits and Darby Dental Supply, LLC was among them. I noticed everything listed above on their site, so you can get an idea on prices, etc.

This was just my brief and rudimentary personal introduction to casting. I expect I’ve a lot to learn and look forward to doing more. For those more experienced at this than I (and if you’ve done just two casts that includes you!), please feel free to correct or add to anything above. Or post links to pics of your own casts. I’d love to read more on this and hear other tips, tricks, and methods.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Descendant sues Skull and Bones over Geronimo’s bones (cnn.com)

1. Repatriation and Burial Issues – found on the internet 4/10/09. This is a page on Larry J. Zimmerman’s site, which gives an overview of NAGPRA and the issues that surround it. His case studies are mandatory reading for anyone interested in participating in any level of archaeological practice [↩]

The season finale of Battlestar Galactica wasn’t all touchy-feely like the 1980’s version where the heroes Starbuck, Apollo, and the rest land at modern Earth. Instead, they arrive at pre-civilization, pre-language Earth as far as humans are concerned. I’m sure this fits nicely with the Micheal Cremo (of Forbidden Archaeology) crowd who already believe that there were advanced humans millions of years ago -though the BSG crew arrives at around 180,000 years ago according to the show.

Some of you might recall that I’ve been a fan of the “re-imagined” Battlestar Galactica series. I wrote a short essay in response to Dirk Benedict’s criticism of the show and Katee Sackoff’s portrayal of his former character, Starbuck. Dirk’s essay was called “Lost in Castration.” He predicted the series’ failure if memory serves. Far from it, the series did well for the SciFi Channel and a following of fans from around he globe were drawn to it.

Here’s a clip of David Letterman’s Top Ten List which includes the whole cast. Along with Starbuck, I think Colonel Saul Tigh was my favorite -Boomer/Number 8 was cool, too. I will not admit to searching “Grace Park” in Google Image when I found this clip!

So, what’s up with Doctor Who?

Related articles by Zemanta

• A great show and a frakkin great ending (stillsecureafteralltheseyears.com)
• TV Junkie: ‘Battlestar Galactica’ – Vaya Con Dios (laist.com)
• Battle of the Starbucks (ahotcupofjoe.net)
• U.N. hosts Battlestar Galactica retrospective (pastemagazine.com)

If you like comics, the internet, and archaeology, you really must check out this short online comic.

The Secret in the Cellar: A Written in Bone forensic mystery from colonial America.

The Secret in the Cellar

This webcomic is based on a very real forensic case that was investigated regarding a 17th century male who was probably an indentured servant who met with a violent death.

If you go to the comic, let me know what you thought. Its geared for young adults or teens, but I found it enjoyable.

One of the pseudo-archaeological claims that I see from time to time on the intertubes is the speculation that there are underwater ruins of an ancient civilization off the coast of Yonagumi.

This by itself isn’t such a fantastic claim. There are countless settlements and remnants of civilizations as old as the neolithic and before that have since been inundated by rising sea levels. At the height of the Last Glacial Maximum, sea levels were as much as 100-120 meters lower^[1]. According to Graham Hancock, a mystery-monger and significance-junkie who profits quite well from his books and media appearances in which he appeals to the sense of mystery in us all, the site at Yonaguni is at a depth of “up to 30 meters^[2].” By conservative estimates, this would put the region above sea level at between 8-10 thousand years ago^[3]!

What Hancock would have us believe is that a culture lived and thrived on this remote island 10,000 years ago and was able to create monumental architecture. Again, by itself, this isn’t a completely far-fetched idea. Monumental architecture did start to appear in various places around the world at around 10,000 – 6,500 years ago. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be the case at Yonaguni.

The conclusion that the submarine rock formations found at Yonaguni are anthropogenic is quite a leap that isn’t supported by evidence. To reach this conclusion, we must first begin with the premise that the submarine geology cannot be natural. As with other sites around the globe, mystery-mongers will quickly and quite fallaciously conclude that “nature doesn’t make right angles” and Hancock, in chapter 27 of Underworld, quotes, mentions, or implies this more than once. You might recall my previous posts on Semir Osmanagic and his (and others’) “nature doesn’t make right-angles” claim.

Many of the angles that I’ve seen in various photographs on the “ruins” aren’t right-angles at all, but rhombohedral. That is to say, they’re slightly off from perpendicular, which is a characteristic of a kind of fracturing in geology known as jointing. Jointing occurs when there is fracturing without movement as with a fault. Imagine placing a stack of Graham crackers on a pencil and apply force to the top of the cracker and you’ll see various fracturing occur depending upon the direction and intensity of the force applied and the position of the pencil (or pencils if you want to get creative).

One of the supporting claims of proponents of the “ancient ruins” speculation is that a “stone

The Alleged Stone Tablet

A Cypriot Stone Anchor

tablet” has been found, but photos of this “tablet” look more like a weight or anchor -which would depend upon the size. None of the photos on the internet have actually had anything included in the photo for scale (archaeologists often include a small black and white placard in centimeters; geologists often just plop their hammer in the photo). I would be very surprised if these types of stones weren’t common in the region given the thousands of years of fishing economy. Nets need weights and boats need anchors.

The Alleged Head

Yet another supporting photo is the “colossal head,” reminiscent of Olmec society in Mesoamerica. Yet this rock seems to be a perpetrator of pareidolia more than anything. Like the so-called “face on Mars,” this rock only just resemble a face with some vaguely familiar crevices where one might expect to see eyes. Given the number of rocks in the area, there are bound to be several that have naturally occurring “faces” on them -you can see such “faces” just watching a few cumulus clouds pass on a breezy spring day.

Then there’s the pictures at the top of this post. Number 1 shows an alleged “site plan” of the “ruins,” but this is completely fallacious and leading since it presupposes and leads the viewer into the expectation that something has actually been discovered. Looking at this diagram, you can see its labeled with “terraces” and “streets,” a “sacred place” and a “gate” and so on. None of these alleged features have any supporting evidence for context. Not a shred. Indeed, they look like rocks that have fractured underwater in the same manner that they have above sea level. The difference is the debris. There is a distinct lack of debris in the photos you see of the underwater features (i.e #2) while there are more rubble and debris from broken and fallen rock on the coastal formations. The reason is most likely the current. I noticed that this warm water region is distinctly void of vegetation and fish, which is consistent with rough water due to wave action. These same waves would remove the debris from broken rock and fill the base with sand further hiding the debris.

If we can assume the model (#3) found on many websites is accurate, we can then compare it with terrestrial geology. Does it compare? I’d say so. Photo number 4 is a close up of the same member, with the same apparent strike and the same stratigraphy of shale or sandstone as the underwater version. There are right angles. There are rhombohedral angles. There are steps. There are “terraces.” See the full size version below:

There’s little doubt that those who want there to be a dark, mysterious but lost civilization to exist in the waters of Yonaguni will simply go on seeing only evidence of that imagined civilization in the very natural but cool geology of the region. However, there simply isn’t any supporting evidence that such a civilization existed and that this civilization created the monumental architecture necessary to be what is claimed. There are too many new assumptions that must be introduced (which is the very thing that appeals to certain mystery-mongers) about human evolution. Along with monumental architecture comes wide-scale domestication of plants and animals -a fishing culture alone would not be able to provide the required calories for the number of people necessary to engage in such architecture. There should be corresponding artifacts on the island of Yonaguni which support the hypothesis that 10,000 years ago there existed a culture which was able to engage in monumental architecture. Such evidence is not forthcoming either on land or below the surface of the waves thrashing Yonaguni’s shores.

1. http://www.cartruts.com/pictures/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.jpg [↩]
2. Hancock, Graham (24 May 2008) Confronting Yonaguni, online excerpt of Chap. 27. Underworld. Crown, 2002. [↩]
3. http://www.cartruts.com/pictures/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.jpg [↩]

If you’ve never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson, I only have one question: “Where have you been? In a bubble?”

Okay, that was two questions. But, on the off-chance that you have been in a bubble (either literally or metaphorically) the last decade or two, Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the most visible and outspoken scientists since Carl Sagan. He is, quite literally, one in a million considering the number of astrophysicists in the world, but also considering the number of genuinely funny and engaging scientists.

His talk on Tuesday night was sold out -the house was packed. And afterwards, I stood in line to get my copy of Death by Black Hole: and Other Cosmic Quandaries signed. And what do you suppose he did, just as I handed him the book (turned to the page he preferred to sign)? After waiting in line for a full hour, Dr. Tyson said, “hang on just a sec. I need to do this first.” He then proceeded to work on a Rubik’s cube. I have the photo to prove it!

But I was far from annoyed… in fact, I was completely and utterly elated! Earlier that day, I was describing Dr. Tyson to my wife and explaining why I would be late coming home from my graduate bioarchaeology class, so I pulled up his webite and clicked on a couple video links to the John Stewart show so she could see who he was. And there was John Stewart cracking on Dr. Tyson the day after his appearance for staying in the Green Room after the show to finish a Rubik’s Cube. My wife thought it was funny and now here he was, right in front of me, working mathematical magic on the Cube.

Dr. Tyson said, “sorry,” while clearly orienting the puzzle in a deliberate pattern, concentrating on getting to a point where he was closer to the solution and could remember where he left off so he could finish it later.

My reply was, “oh, take your time.”

My grin was from ear to ear.
Oh, and it was a great talk too!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Neil deGrasse Tyson Lectures us on Saturn V (geeksaresexy.net)
• Carl Sagan on the Chemical Elements (milkandcookies.com)
• Carl Sagan on Human Brain (brainandlearning.blogspot.com)

None have fought better, and none have been more fortunate than Charles Darwin. He found a great truth, trodden underfoot, reviled by bigots, and ridiculed by all the world; he lived long enough to see it, chiefly by his own efforts, irrefragably established in science, inseparably incorporated with the common thoughts of men. . . . What shall a man desire more than this?^[1]

These words by T.H. Huxley still ring true today, in spite of the ignorance that continues to demand that superstition be given precedence over the fact of evolution. The accomplishments of Darwin, after all these years, are nothing short of a pain in the backsides of religious fundamentalists who want to find ways to insert their religious doctrine and superstition into public schools.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of Darwin’s accomplishments and contributions to so many disciplines of science. So I thought I’d offer an additional quote -a passage from The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals which appeals to me as an anthropologist:

Our early progenitors, when indignant or moderately angry, would not have held their heads erect, opened their chests, squared their shoulders, and clenched their fists, until they had acquired the ordinary carriage and upright attitude of man, and had learnt to fight with their fists or clubs Until this period had arrived the antithetical gesture of shrugging the shoulders, as a sign of impotence or of patience, would not have been developed. From the same reason astonishment would not then have been expressed by raising the arms with open hands and extended fingers. Nor, judging from the actions of monkeys would astonishment have been exhibited by a widely opened mouth; but the eyes would have been opened and the eyebrows arched. Disgust would have been shown at a very early period by movements round the mouth, like those of vomiting,–that is, if the view which I have suggested respecting the source of the expression is correct, namely, that our progenitors had the power, and used it, of voluntarily and quickly rejecting any food from their stomachs which they disliked. But the more refined manner of showing contempt or disdain, by lowering the eyelids, or turning away the eyes and face, as if the despised person were not worth looking at, would not probably have been acquired until a much later period.^[2].

Thank you, Charles Darwin, for your courage, your brilliance, and your fortitude in the face of significant objection.

Related articles by Zemanta

• On the Origin of Darwin by Means of Extreme Summary, or The Abbreviation of A Voluminous Life in the Struggle for Brevity (wired.com)
• Charles Darwin at 200: Exact replica of his HMS Beagle cabin goes on show (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Vatican Agrees With Darwin (takepart.com)
• Darwin 200 years later: Evolution by selection of quotations (sciam.com)

1. Huxley, Thomas Henry (1882). Charles Darwin. Nature 25, p. 597. [↩]
2. Darwin, Charles (1872). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray [↩]

My next graduate semester just started and I’ll probably post some articles related to this semester’s coursework, specifically bioanthropology. I’m looking forward to this class -the syllabus describes hands-on skeletal analysis.

New and upcoming with A Hot Cup of Joe

This blog has been added to Alltop’s Top Anthropology News page. Hopefully this will drive more traffic here. They seem to be legit and, to be quite honest, I’ll probably spend some time there perusing the various links from various anthropology blogs. They appear to list a couple dozen Anthro blogs and their most recent 5 post titles. Clicking the post title takes you to the original post on the blog.

I’ve started using Zemanta and a couple other plugins in Wordpress that offer some footnote/endnote functionality. Zemanta lets me import links, tags and relevant photos automatically as well as inlcude a reblog link at the bottom.

I plan to update the pages and subpages of A Hot Cup of Joe. You might have noticed an “Evolution” page and I’d like to enhance its subpages as they specifically relate to human evolution and anthropology over the next few months. I’m also considering adding a library page with a listing of book titles and links to reviews and amazon. I run across a lot of good anthropology / archaeology related books that others might find interesting.

I’m also working out a couple of pseudoarchaeology posts with articles skeptical of various pseudoarchaeological claims. The first of these should be up by the week end (oops… did I just set myself a deadline?).

Thanks for reading! Leave me your comments and suggestions -I’d love to have them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Footnotes plugin for WordPress