Anthropology in the future

Urban Barn's Colourful Coffee-table Buddha. http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/ef/0b/6e0eda7b453495458e0c863bf84a.jpeg

One thing that has been occupying my mind lately is what are archaeologists going to look at in the future?

So much of our culture today is contained within the Internet, on CDs, USB sticks, and other pieces of technology. So much of the things that take president in our lives rely on electricity to be functional and useful, so what will happen when the time comes that our sources of technology are forgotten or unusable. For example, VHS cassettes are increasingly hard to play, even now, because they have been replaced by DVDs and BluRay disks. But, if you are not able to play these disks or tapes what would they be interpreted as? Hypothetically, when our technologies are all out of date a thousand years in the future what will be deemed important?

http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/internet-tv-killing-dvd.jpg

I also question, will they care? Has our civilization documented every aspect of our culture so thoroughly that, in the future, there will be no curiosity about the 21st century? There are some people who have kept a record of their thoughts on the Internet in the form of bloggs or web-pages for years, will these be taken into account to judge our society? Will our technology ensure that we are remembered in years to come, or will it make it easier for us to be forgotten?

When thinking of the affect we have on the archaeological record it is also interesting to think about what items they might focus on in future studies of the 21st c. There will be so much left behind in land fills and settlements that I wonder if they will even care. Some of the adds on the internet I don't even know what the items are for so how would it be interpreted later on. And so much of what we own today is so trivial, in western societies we often itemize everything, I remember seeing decorative neon statues of Buddha at Urban Barn and thinking "that is compleetly out of context!"

Oreo Scoops? Honestly... Imagen finding these without knowing what an Oreo is. Completely confusing!http://d1535dk28ea235.cloudfront.net/preset_65/oreo_scooper.png

I realize this post is not the most cognitive but its just a little bit of what I have been thinking lately... why will future generations want to learn about our culture and will the multitude of crap we leave behind daunt them in any way?

Paleolithic Spit Painting in at Home!

For another one of my classes, ANTH 392: Paleolithic Art, I am currently working on a term project on spit painting. This is the method used at Pech Merel in the Quercy region of France to create the famous spotted horses dating 250,000 BCE.

For this project a friend and I are attempting to learn how to spit paint. It is surprisingly hard. To create this effect you have to chew up, or grind, charcoal which then you put in your mouth and spit on the wall. You have to be careful otherwise you will end up with huge globs instead of the fine spray that is desired...

Lorblanchet's beautiful horse....

My Pathetic first attempt... waaaay too much saliva!
Although the top bit is okay...

For this project I am using "Art- Arch Charcoal" which is made of burned rods that vary from stick to stick, some of them are a lot harder to chew but it is the safest choice health wise. 

So basically you chew up the stick and then, while trying to keep your mouth as dry as possible you spit it onto the wall. We tried this in class during a lab as well, on paper, and it turned out really soggy!

Using my hand as a stencil I was able to make the first hand with one stick of charcoal. As you can see from the picture, there were a lot of globs the first go. The second one I chewed the charcoal more at the front of my mouth using my incisors in stead of my molars, that worked a lot better. Also, I tried using my tongue as a stopper more in the second one. 

Much better!

Each Hand took about 7 minutes... but I think that as you get better it takes more time. To see how the pro's do it watch the video at the end of the page!

The advantages to spit painting is that no matter how rough the surface you are working with, such as cave walls, the paint will still reach all the crevices. Using a brush is harder because you have to dab in order to get the sharp dark lines achieved in the Pech Merle picture. 

This method  is not just limited to France though, or even to the Paleolithic. There is still a group of people who practice this art form today! The Aborigines of Australia use it to create hand marks as well. 

Lovely!

I will ad to this blog after I have experimented some more. Tomorrow I plan to try some lines using my hands to channel the paint!

Me and my hand, yummy yummy.

 Watch this video from 3:00 - 7:00. Its a snip of "The Incredible Human Journey- Europe".  There is some interesting information about the development of white skin as well as looking at first settlements... it moves really fast. 

My Mycenae MUST be Better than....Mycenae

When searching the Internet for information on Mycenae I came across this website on Mycenae.

http://www.grisel.net/images/greece/Mycenae24.JPG

I assume this is Jeff Prosise... At the Lion Gate!

This website reads much like a tourist pamphlet; it has an introductory/ background paragraph at the top of the page with a few links to other "informative sites" about Mycenae and its glorious history. This website presents Heinrich Schliemann's view of Mycenae being the home of Agamemnon as described in Homer's epics without providing any proof (like Schliemann) for this claim. It does have a number of lovely pictures, all taken by the sites creator Grisel Gonzalez and friend Jeff Prosise, which are accompanied by descriptions that I quite liked. It appears to me that this is a site made after a trip and, probably, a guided tour of the Mycenae site on Holiday. What brings me to this conclusion is that: a) it presents a romanticized and good-story account of Mycenae's history, b) it shows no references for where the information is gathered from, and c) Gonzalez and Prosise are in some of the photos...and d) it is linked to another site titled "Our World Travels" by the same people. 


As a brows through site I almost liked it, loved the pictures, but as an informative anything it falls flat.


The point of this entry was to find a site on the same topic as the topic that Abbey, Lisa, and Kate and I have chosen for our website project, Mycenae, and then hold it up against our own grading rubric. It almost feels unfair to judge this travel site against our more academic grading scheme but, when it all boils down, they are propelling false information even if they do not mean to. Also, there are very few sites geared to the public on Mycenae and I had to choose one to tear a strip from.
So here I go!


Research Question: 1/8, This site does not seem to aim to answer any specific questions apart from "What is Mycenae?" and even that question they answer incorrectly; there is no concrete proof that Agamemnon ever came in contact with this city, let alone was buried there.
Analysis: 1/8, The site, as I said earlier, seems to be regurgitated information from a guided tour. They also do not try and support any of the information they present or question if there was another possible explanation for this site other than "it must be the city Homer spoke of!".
Evidence: 0/8, No evidence is provided. 
Content: 2/8, The site provides a narrow and minimal explanation of the site and, given that there was never any proof of Agamemnon living there (other than Schliemann's ridiculous naming of artefacts) the information is inappropriate to be presented as fact or without a disclaimer.  
Total for Information: 4/36
Visual Impact: 5/8, The site does present an interesting to look at page, It is a good mixture of image and text and I really liked the colour coordination and the artistic touch of the Greek columns topped with statues that provide the border. 
Format/ Navigation: 4/8, the page is easy to navigate and seems complete but not all the links are working. It is quite simple and when you do navigate to viewing the pictures it is tedious and a bit boring.
Total for Aesthetics Section: 9/16
Spelling & Grammar: 4/4, There are no spelling mistakes. Way to go!
Clarity: 3/4, This site has no jargon and is extremely easy to read by any person, no matter their education. Could be considered overly simplistic. 
Sources: 1/4, No sources are used. 
Photographs: 4/4, There are a number of lovely photos on this site and I might even use them for  my own! 
Total for Basics: 12/16


Total Score of the site: 25/68
37%, in other words a Fail according to the Team Wilberforce Rubric.


I'm sorry to have had to fail this teeny-tiny site. At least I know that our site shall be better than this one was. 


Thanks for reading,


Emily