john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

tv

  • Neandertal night on PBS

    Tue, 2013-05-14 09:34 -- John Hawks

    This Wednesday (May 15) is Neandertal night on PBS stations in the U.S., with two documentary programs covering the last few years of science about these ancient people.

    First, the NOVA episode this week is the "Decoding Neandertals" program. This was broadcast earlier this year, and it is a really good summary of some current research into Neandertal genetics and behavior:

    Over 60,000 years ago, the first modern humans—people physically identical to us today—left their African homeland and entered Europe, then a bleak and inhospitable continent in the grip of the Ice Age. But when they arrived, they were not alone: the stocky, powerfully built Neanderthals had already been living there for hundred of thousands of years. So what happened when the first modern humans encountered the Neanderthals? Did we make love or war? That question has tantalized generations of scholars and seized the popular imagination. Then, in 2010, a team led by geneticist Svante Paabo announced stunning news. Not only had they reconstructed much of the Neanderthal genome—an extraordinary technical feat that would have seemed impossible only a decade ago—but their analysis showed that "we" modern humans had interbred with Neanderthals, leaving a small but consistent signature of Neanderthal genes behind in everyone outside Africa today. In "Decoding Neanderthals," NOVA explores the implications of this exciting discovery. In the traditional view, Neanderthals differed from "us" in behavior and capabilities as well as anatomy. But were they really mentally inferior, as inexpressive and clumsy as the cartoon caveman they inspired? NOVA explores a range of intriguing new evidence for Neanderthal self-expression and language, all pointing to the fact that we may have seriously underestimated our mysterious, long-vanished human cousins.

    Second, a new episode of Secrets of the Dead is being broadcast, titled "Caveman Cold Case", about El Sidron Cave:

    A tomb of 49,000 year-old Neanderthal bones discovered in El Sidron, a remote, mountainous region of Northern Spain, leads to a compelling investigation to solve a double mystery: How did this group of Neanderthals die? And, could the fate of this group help explain Neanderthal extinction? Scientists examine the bones—buried over 65 feet below ground—and discover signs that tell a shocking story of how this group of six adults, three teenagers, two children and a baby may have met their death. Some bones have deep cuts, long bones are cracked and skulls crushed—distinct signs of cannibalism. Was it a result of ritual or hunger? Neanderthal experts are adamant that they were not bloodthirsty brutes. Will this investigation challenge their views? What happened here 49000 years ago will take us on a much bigger journey—from El Sidron to the other end of the Iberian Peninsula where scientists are excavating beneath the seas off Gibraltar in search of Neanderthal sites. Scientists working here had theories—but no proof—for why Neanderthals went extinct. El Sidron may change this.

    I'm really excited that this one is being broadcast in the U.S. -- it covers the science from a forensic point of view, including new insights about diet and breadth of behavior. It is a great program that goes into the research by Antonio Rosas and Carles Lalueza-Fox on the Spanish Neandertals, and gives us a viewpoint on the Gibraltar Neandertals with Clive Finlayson.

    I play a small part in both programs, and I'm happy to see the Neandertals getting such high-profile attention!

  • Education, not television, for science participation

    Sun, 2013-02-17 19:20 -- John Hawks

    Alice Bell comments on the non-interactivity of the most common means of science popularization: "Science on TV: it's not dumb, but it could be smarter".

    I especially worry that science is often rendered as something to be simply consumed by the public. If we're using the metaphor of scientific "literacy", it's "read-only" research. Retelling science for explanatory or entertainment purposes might give us a great picture of what the scientific idea looks like but often removes a lot about how the scientists got to these conclusions. It doesn't show the workings of science or share the more slippery science-in-the-making, meaning it's harder to critique or get involved with (or simply enjoy these processes as entertaining and educational in themselves). I'd like to see an attempt to share the means of production of science, not just sell its products.

    I note that actually participating in science is what we do in education. Transforming a television program from a passive experience to an active one would help transform its nature from informative to educational.

    We can equally come at this from the other side. Why not take education and make broader use of storytelling, filming, and multimedia resources? Frozen Planet and other BBC productions have done much to show how technological progress in filming and broadcasting have enabled cinema-like qualities in long-form TV documentaries. These technologies are also transforming the classroom. We won't have cinema-quality, highly-edited classroom productions, not without a radical reallocation of effort and resources on the part of faculty. But we can produce material that would have been broadcast quality several years ago, and we can make it available anywhere the internet goes.

    The trick is maintaining, or even increasing, the level of interactivity as we engage larger numbers of students online, potentially across multiple institutions and the public. I have some ideas for that, some of which will be rolling out over the next few months.

  • When Hollywood and paleoanthropology intersect, 2

    Mon, 2013-01-28 23:43 -- John Hawks

    A couple of weeks ago, TV's Bones series, which features stories inspired by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs, did an episode with a relevant plot: The FBI encounters bones dug up by an archaeologist in Chechnya, which turn out to be Ayla's family, or something thereabouts -- a family group of Neandertal, modern human, and hybrid offspring. A reader tipped me to the story, but I'm not a regular viewer of the show. Fortunately, Kristina Killgrove -- along with her excellent work in Roman bioarchaeology -- also watches and reviews episodes of Bones: "Bones - Season 8, Episode 11 (Review)".

    She describes the plot and applies the reality filter -- including things the writers got right, and the parts that were, well, weaker:

    Edison said "epiphynis" for some odd reason. He and Brennan both kept saying "Homo sapien" which really just annoys the crap out of me. (Seriously, I harp on this with my students - it's sapiens, as it's from the Latin present participle, which ends in -ns. Also, it's super easy to remember it has an -s at the end because literally all other major Homo species do: H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens. For different linguistic reasons, but it makes it easy to remember!) I could go on and on about how they kept saying "Neanderthal" rather than "Neandertal" (the latter being the preferred pronunciation today), but... yeah. Argh. Just. Argh.

    The plot twist of the creationist who funded archaeological work so that he could destroy the finds was pretty clever.

  • "Decoding Neanderthals" to be broadcast

    Sat, 2012-12-22 16:08 -- John Hawks

    NOVA on American PBS stations has produced a new documentary about Neandertals: "Decoding Neanderthals". They have just announced that it will be broadcast January 9 on most stations.

    Here's the program description:

    Over 60,000 years ago, the first modern humans—people physically identical to us today—left their African homeland and entered Europe, then a bleak and inhospitable continent in the grip of the Ice Age. But when they arrived, they were not alone: the stocky, powerfully built Neanderthals had already been living there for hundred of thousands of years. So what happened when the first modern humans encountered the Neanderthals? Did we make love or war? That question has tantalized generations of scholars and seized the popular imagination. Then, in 2010, a team led by geneticist Svante Paabo announced stunning news. Not only had they reconstructed much of the Neanderthal genome—an extraordinary technical feat that would have seemed impossible only a decade ago—but their analysis showed that "we" modern humans had interbred with Neanderthals, leaving a small but consistent signature of Neanderthal genes behind in everyone outside Africa today. In "Decoding Neanderthals," NOVA explores the implications of this exciting discovery. In the traditional view, Neanderthals differed from "us" in behavior and capabilities as well as anatomy. But were they really mentally inferior, as inexpressive and clumsy as the cartoon caveman they inspired? NOVA explores a range of intriguing new evidence for Neanderthal self-expression and language, all pointing to the fact that we may have seriously underestimated our mysterious, long-vanished human cousins.

    I make an appearance on the show -- and that's my voice in the trailer talking about the "mother of all public relations problems" that Neandertals have faced.

  • Cutting room floors

    Sat, 2012-12-01 01:07 -- John Hawks

    Reading items on my desktop, I found a rant I had written a while back. I generally don't post rants, but a decent amount of time has passed...

    I'm totally irritated this morning because we turned on a cable channel where they were showing a documentary about Neandertals from only a few years ago. It's a clutch of talking heads telling stories about what Neandertal life "must have been like", accompanied by actors dressed in skins and clay brow ridges. The difference between the "modern" and "Neandertal" actors is whether the skins have been stripped of fur. If you've seen any human evolution documentaries in the last decade, you know the genre.

    Walking caveman shows are hardly anything new, and I've been in a few that have been pretty good. So why am I particularly irritated?

    This particular program was such a waste. The producers assembled a fair group of scientists to comment on the Neandertals and clearly spent a lot of money on the production. But then they encouraged those scientists to go way beyond the science. And the scientists went along for the ride.

    Here's a hint: When you're talking about the differences between Neandertal and modern human spiritual beliefs, you've gone beyond the science.

    Earlier this week, I saw a link on Twitter from a chemist sick of spending time on interviews with journalists: "Another interview makes the cutting room floor".

    Yes I wanted to be interviewed because its been drummed into me over 20 years that the public understanding of science is pathetic and we scientists have to do a better job communicating to the masses etc.. Now if you filter the scientists through journalists does that make us better communicators? I think in the pre blog days that was the only way to go but some scientists are cracking communicators and have huge audiences. Not me. My work has a couple of journals and magazines that would likely cover something I might do. The potential for my work to reach a broader audience by contributing to an interview is the “bait”. We scientists are lured hook, line and sinker every time. Bigger audience, equals more citations, more citations equals success, funding and respect. I should go further and say that we try to highlight the work because our collaborators and co-authors also benefit from the exposure.

    His complaint is related to tuberculosis research, not bad caveman outfits. But I thought about his concerns when I was watching the program this morning. So many scientists want to help tell good stories about their research, hoping it will make some difference -- a difference to their profile, a difference to public understanding, a difference to their status in the field. It's a mix of selfish and altruistic motivations, a complicated mix.

    We can't tell stories alone. But we need to tell our stories, not the stories that writers feed to us.

    Synopsis: 
    A rant about bad caveman outfits on TV and arm-waving anthropologists
  • Evolution road show

    Fri, 2012-11-09 23:25 -- John Hawks

    Don Prothero and Jerry Coyne are evolutionary biologists, who appeared recently in the BBC film, "Conspiracy road trip: creationism". The film followed a group of five British creationists as they encounter a group of five scientists presenting evidence of the age of the Earth and evolution of life. After the film's broadcast in the UK, Coyne and Prothero have written some reminiscences of their experiences with the production.

    Coyne is the author of the book, Why Evolution Is True, and the eponymous website. In his earlier post about the program, he includes an embedded video. Yesterday he pointed ("Don Prothero recounts his experience with the creationist road trip") to Prothero's account. Coyne:

    Despite the fact that each scientist spent several hours with the creationists—all in vain except, perhaps, for the slightly open-minded JoJo—our participation was edited down to only a few minutes, as I knew it would be. What I didn’t expect was that the program would be mostly about the sociology of the creationist group, including a double schism between Christians/the Muslim and gay-friendly Christians/homophobic Christians. But that drama makes for good t.v., I guess, and I thought the final program was pretty good, if not so enlightening about science.

    Prothero recounts his efforts putting together fossils and charts to use on the program, and some of his experiences confounding them with evidence from the Colorado Plateau. He gives a nice account of the meandering course of the Colorado and its impossibility by Flood geology. By both accounts, the highlight of the film was the paleoanthropological stylings of Tim White:

    The most effective segment of all was with paleoanthropologist Tim White at U.C. Berkeley, who laid out casts of a bunch of hominid skulls and had them sort them by their anatomy. Once they had done so, he pointed out that this was the exact sequence that these skulls were found in a single place in Ethiopia, and that primitive ones were never found on the level with the advanced ones, and vice versa. It was a remarkable bit of scientific theater, and they were unable to respond coherently to it, since there IS no creationist response. The most primitive skulls look like “apes” to them, the most advanced ones are clearly “human”—and there are all the intermediates in between.

    Go hominins! Prothero is the author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, which is on sale right now on the Kindle in the U.S. for only $3.99.

  • Mailbag: Neandertal pigmentation

    Sun, 2012-10-28 11:08 -- John Hawks
    Good morning

    The BBC TV Prehistoric Autopsy programme was fascinating.

    I couldn't help noticing that Neanderthal's range was roughly the same as that of early white-skinned Homo sapiens. No mention was made of the possibility that we inherited white-skin genes from breeding with Neanderthals, they after all had had a longer time to evolve this trait than us.

    Is there any evidence for or against such a hypothesis?

    We have good representation in the Neandertal genomes of the DNA sites that affect light skin in Europeans. So far it appears that the Neandertals did not carry any of the alleles that are associated with lighter skin in Europe today.

    They did have some changes to the genes that affect pigmentation that are not present in any living people. We speculate that these changes may have lightened skin or hair in the Neandertals, but we will not know this until we have experimental evidence about them. If this is correct, then the Neandertals will represent another case of convergence toward light pigmentation in the high latitude geographic range.

  • Liveblog of ScienceNOW on Neandertals, Dikika

    Wed, 2012-10-10 22:09 -- John Hawks

    Now watching the NOVA ScienceNOW about "What makes us human".

    9:06: "The idea of another species of humans sharing our cities isn't that far-fetched. 30,000 years ago, there were at least four different kinds of humans sharing the earth, including the Neandertals"

    The introduction to Neandertals isn't bad, although I really don't like it when people say "the ones who stayed in Africa became us" -- that minimizes the contribution of other people, and glosses over the possibility that some ancient Africans didn't become "us", or were among the ancestors of some Africans but not all.

    9:08: "Daniel Lieberman from Harvard looks for answers in the way human heads evolved" -- Lieberman: "What makes you different from Neandertals is basically above the neck."

    9:09: Now Pogue is showing himself in a makeup studio being made into a Neandertal character. Back to Lieberman explaining how the Neandertal head is different from ours. It's really interesting to hear him describe this, because the description is completely typological -- there's no conception here of variation within Neandertals or within humans.

    9:11: OK, the makeup transformation is complete. I don't want to cast aspersions on the artists, but the result doesn't compete with the makeup jobs on Face/Off.

    Pogue goes walking down a city street. I don't see anybody noticing..but of course there's a cameraman following him around.

    9:13: Differences in the shape of the brain. Lieberman "wouldn't bet his mortgage" on human brains being better than Neandertals.

    Now Pogue is presenting several just-so stories about why we were superior to Neandertals. He dismisses these as "speculation" and starts talking about the Neandertal genome. We see a Max Planck scientist grinding up some bone with a Dremel tool.

    9:15: Yay, Ed Green!

    Green: "They had sex, they had descendants, we find this trace in our DNA today. Amazing."

    9:18: This is the fourth show I know of where they have a presenter get their DNA sampled to find the Neandertal fraction. It's really cool that they are getting this news out there.

    Green shows Pogue a part of chromosome 12 where he has a Neandertal nucleotide. They're showing a laptop screen with a slot machine-like display of nucleotides. I suppose it was really a blank screen and they did it in post-production. Either that, or I have to get the slot machine DNA typing program!

    9:20: "We may not see Neandertals among us, but they are still here, within us."

    Still walking down the street. An older lady seems to have decided Pogue is some kind of freak.

    Oh, no! An animated Neandertal in drag! She/he is putting on makeup (this is about the shells and pigments associated with Neandertals). I have only this to say: Through the Wormhole has way better short animations than ScienceNOW.

    Whew, that was over quick. Now he's on to the origin of language.

    9:22: It's Dave Frayer! He's got a suitcase with skulls inside. Man, it would be cool if it were like the one in Pulp Fiction!

    OK, well, it's cooler to have one with skulls inside, I guess.

    Going through Homo erectus brain size. A symmetrical stone tool becomes a way to look into the cognitive abilities of early Homo.

    9:26: On to Dietrich Stout, who is discussing the pathways in the brain used for stone tools. He works with Bruce Bradley, expert stone knapper, who is giving Pogue a lesson in toolmaking.

    With toolmaking we're looking at complex, sequential thought. Bradley: "Because what are we looking at with language, it's complex sequential thought"

    9:29: Now Cynthia Thompson, who is looking at people with brain injuries that lead to aphasia. "Agrammatic aphasia patients share a common characteristic: damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, which contains an area called Broca's area...does Broca's area have anything to do with stone toolmaking?"

    9:31: Going into a scanner, where people are watching stone toolmaking via a projector, on the argument that watching an activity and doing the activity involve the same brain area. "Watching the video of simple choppers resulted in mild activity in Broca's area, but watching the video of making a handaxe caused four times as much activity"

    9:34: A short interlude on babies learning language.

    9:35: Looking at babies learning to laugh. Gina Mireault is studying babies smiling and laughing. "What we found with these very young babies, is that when we tell parents to make their babies laugh, they do some very outrageous things. Laughter is irresistible"

    9:37: Now at the Cincinnati Zoo to see if animals laugh. Pogue tickles a penguin -- "he's laughing" -- "no, that's the noise they make when they want to breed"

    Pogue is really talented at this part, he totally commits himself to being silly in the name of science.

    Marina Davila-Ross is studying primate laughter. They are at the Stuttgart Zoo with gorillas. She collected sounds from all the great apes being tickled. Super cool audiogram images of the laughter sounds going from most distant -- orangutans -- to humans across the phylogenetic tree. Gorillas always use the same kind of panting laughter, as a part of horseplay.

    9:42: Now with psychologist Michael Owren, looking at acoustic models of laughter sounds in people.

    9:43: Pogue asks a great question: "How did that make me have more babies?" The program gives an answer (for laughter and social relationships) but it's great that they edited it to emphasize this question.

    9:44: Zeray Alemseged in Ethiopia: "I went to start the first Ethiopian-led project in paleoanthropology ever, but it wasn't easy". The show gives a great short biography of Alemseged. This is an awesome segment.

    9:48: Now at Dikika. They do a great job illustrating the discovery of the skeleton.

    9:50: Don Johanson discussing how we "did not instantly become human".

    9:51: "Day after day, for six years, Zeray chipped away at the piece of stone." They're comparing the Selam teeth to apes and humans, inferring its age and pattern of development. The show has him at a computer with Fred Spoor examining CT data.

    9:53: Describing the hoopla that arose upon the publication of the Dikika skeleton. This has been a great 12-minute segment on Alemseged.

    9:55: And that's the program. Very well done, a range of segments that go together very naturally. They really did save the best for last, but really everyone in the program did a great job.

    Synopsis: 
    The magazine program has segments on Neandertal DNA, language evolution, and Zeray Alemseged
  • "Bones of Turkana" to air

    Thu, 2012-05-10 19:21 -- John Hawks

    On Wednesday, May 16, PBS here in the U.S. is broadcasting a film called "Bones of Turkana".

    The astonishing life of Richard Leakey — paleoanthropologist, conservationist, statesman, provocateur —will be the subject of an hour-long special from National Geographic, Bones of Turkana. The program investigates four decades of exploration and discovery around Northern Kenya's Lake Turkana, which have given rise to both breakthroughs and controversy in the contentious field of human evolution.

    The film follows Leakey today — along with his wife, Meave, daughter Louise and the world-famous fossil hunters of the Turkana Basin Institute team — striving and exploring along the shores of a mercurial and prophetic lake. It is both a portrait of a remarkable family, as well as a dramatic tale of a place that, despite momentous climate change, has never ceased being the cauldron of human evolution.

    Sounds like a lot to squeeze into an hour...

  • Sex in the Stone Age

    Fri, 2012-04-06 21:32 -- John Hawks

    I've just gotten word that the long-awaited Denisova documentary on the National Geographic Channel is running next Thursday night at 10:00 pm Eastern in the U.S.

    Sex in the Stone Age promo graphic

    Yes, they called it "Sex in the Stone Age". I find it to be a great improvement over the working title, "X-Woman".

    I have a small role in this documentary, mainly contextualizing how we can use a genome to investigate the phenotypes of ancient people. The film crew got some great coverage of the Denisova area when I was there last summer, and spoke extensively to the Max Planck sequencing team as well as the Russian excavators from the Institute of Archaeology in Novosibirsk. I hope they did a good job with the writing and editing!

    Here's the promo text they've been sending around:

    A fragment of a pinky bone and a tooth twice the size of today’s average molar are the only remnants of a species we now know lived at the same time and place as modern humans—and interbred with them. They are a part of us we never knew existed. What did these “people” look like? And how do they fit into what we thought we knew about our biological development as a species?

    It's such a fascinating problem, and I'm glad it's being shown to a broader audience. I just wish it weren't at the very same moment when I'll be doing the Plenary Session for the AAPA meetings in Portland!

Pages

Subscribe to tv

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.