john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

Boning up on British history

Tue, 2013-04-30 09:10 -- John Hawks

From The Guardian: "Richard III archaeologists to return to Leicester site in search of lost knight".

This time the team is applying to the Home Office for an exhumation licence for a lead-lined stone sarcophagus, which they believe holds the undisturbed remains of Sir William Moton, believed to have been buried at Grey Friars in 1362.

...

The original dig was funded by the Richard III Society, but the next phase will be paid for by the university and city council, which is predicting a tourism bonanza from the discovery.

My rule of thumb: When British people are doing something ghoulish because they predict a "tourism bonanza", look around for a blue police box.

Oldowan hunting behaviors at Kanjera South

Mon, 2013-04-29 16:28 -- John Hawks

Joseph Ferraro and colleagues have done some neat analyses of the faunal remains from Kanjera South, Kenya [1]. Kanjera South is an archaeological assemblage of Oldowan artifacts and associated animal bones from around 2 million years ago. The site was once a plain next to a lake, and gradually built up clay and silt sediments over years and years of flooding and soil formation. Stone tools and bones stand out in the sediments, representing recurrent activities of ancient humans over a few hundreds or thousands of years. As a result, the site has a good statistical representation of fauna that were hunted by early humans, relatively early in the evolution of our genus.

This is not the earliest site with evidence for meat acquisition by stone toolmakers. We know that people were butchering animals with stone tools around 2.6 million years ago. But the first really good evidence for hunting strategies is much more recent -- around 1.8 million years ago at Olduvai Gorge. There are actually very few Oldowan-era faunal assemblages large enough to study hunting behaviors. Kanjera South shows that the activities documented at Olduvai Gorge were happening a bit earlier, and the site helps to clarify the kind of context in which we might expect to find more evidence of hunting behavior.

Hunting versus scavenging is the tiredest chestnut in anthropologists' Oldowan arsenal. Were early hunters really competent enough to bring down a duiker on their own? Or did they steal away pieces of half-eaten zebra carcases when the lions took a break?

In reality, there is no contradiction here. Undefended meat doesn't last a day in the open, whether on the plains or near waterholes. So scavenging meat from other carnivores usually means facing them down -- not a job for an incompetent killer. Meanwhile, present-day peoples who hunt and gather rely quite a lot on "power scavenging", or taking advantage of other carnivores' successes. The present value of a dead carcass is higher than that of a live animal, as long as it may still escape you. Whether the hunter has to predict prey behavior, or the scavenger has to predict competitors' behavior, both strategies require a depth of planning. So, when it comes to Oldowan-era sites, we should expect to see a mixture of hunted and scavenged remains.

In that context, we can make some inferences about hominin hunting practices by assessing which kinds of animals they hunted, and which they scavenged. Looking at tooth mark and cutmark evidence is not a perfect way of sorting hunting and scavenging -- because both kinds of marks are rare on faunal elements in archaeological contexts. But sometimes those comparisons lead to clear results. For example, here is the chart showing the number of tooth-marked midshaft fragments from long bones at Kanjera South, in comparison to experimental bone assemblages:

Figure 3 from Ferraro et al 2013

Figure 3 from Ferraro et al. 2013. Original caption: Tooth-marked mid-shaft fragments: results from experimental assemblages and excavations at KJS. Figure follows a published model [26]. Hominin-first assemblages refer to remains initially defleshed and demarrowed by hominins, then subsequently exposed to large-bodied carnivores (primarily hyenas). Carnivore-first assemblages refer to remains initially defleshed and/or demarrowed by large-bodied carnivores (primarily hyenas and/or lions). Data for body sizes 1–4 [21]. Modern data (with single standard deviations where available) derived from the literature [23]–[26], [56]–[58]. KJS frequencies are from Table 2 and Table S1. Multiple symbols for KJS indicate the results of multiple analysts. X’s indicate minimum and maximum estimates of damage (see Table S1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062174.g003

These are cool data. Carnivores who get to chew on bones for a while tend to leave the middle of them covered in tooth marks. If humans get access to the carcass early, they will strip off the meat from those midshafts, break them into bits, and otherwise prevent the taphonomic pathway to carnivore tooth marking. And in the graph we see that the Kanjera South faunal assemblage looks like cases where humans were the agents of defleshing and butchering.

If humans had primary access to the carcasses, then the transport decisions of ancient hunters should have shaped the bone assemblage at Kanjera South. It is very common in analyses of the fauna from African Oldowan-era sites to divide the prey animals into three size classes -- small, medium and large. The majority of prey species were bovids, ranging from small antelopes to water buffalo, although most were in the small and medium size categories at Kanjera South. Ferraro and colleagues show that for medium-sized bovids, the hominins were taking two strategies. These bovids were too big to carry wholesale to a central place for sharing. So the hunters disarticulated the animals and carried back the legs, leaving the axial skeleton for the most part behind.

Except for the heads:

But why acquire, transport, and process an abundance of medium-sized heads? In living animals, these remains contain a wealth of fatty, calorie-packed, nutrient-rich tissues: a rare and valuable food resource in a grassland setting where alternate high-value foodstuffs (fruits, nuts, etc.) are often unavailable [2], [3], [29], [49], [52], [63], [76]–[78]. Medium-sized heads are also relatively dense and durable elements, and their internal contents are generally inaccessible to all but hyenas and tool-wielding hominins [63], [79], [80]. As a result, they are often seasonally-available as scavengable resources in East African grasslands [63], [76], [79]–[83]. Additionally, bone surface modification studies at KJS clearly demonstrate that hominins accessed internal head contents: several cranial vault and mandibular fragments bear evidence of percussion striae. Considered in sum, the presumed availability of these isolated remains across the landscape, the relative abundance of these remains in the KJS assemblages, and unambiguous material evidence that hominins exploited their contents on-site is most parsimoniously interpreted as reflecting very early archaeological evidence of a distinct hominin scavenging strategy – one that included a strong focus on acquiring and exploiting fatty, nutrient-rich, energy-dense within-head food resources (e.g., brain matter, mandibular nerve and marrow, etc.) [e.g., 24,63,76,82,84–86].

This is John Speth's scenario for fat acquisition from lean animals. The brain is the last part of the body to become fat-depleted during times of stress. If hunters are energy-limited, further lean meat is not going to be valuable to them because protein takes energy to digest. What they need most is fat, and the most ready source of fat is the brain. Accumulation of head elements, whether from hunted or scavenged sources, is an effective behavioral strategy in those circumstances. It's one that we think Neandertals pursued at the end of winter in some parts of Europe, and a strategy followed by hunters in ethnographic and historic contexts as well.

The paper's conclusion is well-framed as a summary of the overall value of evidence from Kanjera South.

With regard to evolutionary ecology, the relative uniformity of hominin activities documented through the KJS sequence indicates an evolved foraging adaptation well-tuned to local ecological contexts. This point implies that hominin involvement with, and their presumed consumption of, animal remains had substantial fitness implications. In turn, sufficiently strong selective pressures are implicated as having favored the evolution of persistent hominin carnivory no later than 2.0 million years ago. This date is approximately 200,000–500,000 years earlier than previously documented [11], [20], [33], [45], and increases the known time depth of this adaptation within the hominin lineage (range of dates reflects varied interpretations of faunal materials from Olduvai [20]–[42]).

This one was fun to read, because the data being built up at Kanjera South are really capable of testing hypotheses about hunting behavior in a way that some of the Oldovai Gorge assemblages have done up to now. Putting the faunal exploitation together with the stone tool evidence, we see a really interesting picture. As I reported a few years ago ("Plant processing with early Oldowan tools"), Kanjera South is one of the locations where we have good evidence of plant exploitation of some kind by Oldowan peoples. The site has also provided evidence about stone material transport decisions and the planning depth of stone flaking ("Technological sophistication of the earliest toolmakers". It is a good illustration of how deep knowledge of a single site, with teams returning to excavations over multiple seasons, can yield a richness of statistical information about hominin behavior.


References

Profile of Deborah Blum

Sat, 2013-04-27 11:04 -- John Hawks

The Guardian interviews my University of Wisconsin-Madison colleague and friend, Deborah Blum, on what inspires her to write about science: "Deborah Blum on science writing: I'm a neurotic over-researcher".

Or to give you another, more recent example, consider the complex chemistry and biology of plants. It sounds like a dust-dry topic but I love being able to demonstrate that it's wholly fascinating. So stories about plants run like a theme through my Wired blog: the chemical reasons that chocolate is poisonous to dogs, the way that rice plants have an affinity for arsenic, for instance. Or the surprising way that grass – plain old grass in a Texas field – can in conditions of stress, actually generate hydrogen cyanide and kill cattle.

The grass story reminds me of a point that the 19th century psychologist-philosopher William James liked to make. What science shows us, time and time again, is that the real world is a fantastical, wonderful, impossibly complicated piece of work and "nature is everywhere gothic". When I'm aiming high, I like the idea of being a kind of "gothic science writer" in the best Jamesian sense!

It's a great interview with many useful thoughts about how to take your writing to a higher level of interest and depth.

Cro-Magnon 1, dating and mtDNA

Fri, 2013-04-26 10:57 -- John Hawks

I'm running through the new paper from Qiaomei Fu and colleagues [1] about Upper Paleolithic mtDNA genomes. Probably several readers were wondering, as I did, about this passage in the paper concerning Cro-Magnon 1:

The exception was the Cro-Magnon 1 sample, which belonged to the derived hg T2b1, an unexpected hg given its putative age of 30,000 years [16]. Since the radiocarbon date for this specimen was obtained from an associated shell [16], we dated the sample itself using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Surprisingly, the sample had a much younger age of about 700 years, suggesting a medieval origin. Consequently, this bone fragment has now been removed from the Cro-Magnon collection at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. Attempts to directly date other remains from the Cro-Magnon type collection unfortunately failed. The good molecular preservation of our sample for both DNA and AMS dating, in contrast, suggests that this particular bone has a different origin from the other remains in the collection.

Cro-Magnon 1 is one of the most recognizable Upper Paleolithic cranial specimens from Europe, and its date has often been questioned -- largely because the very early excavation of this site by Louis Lartet came early in the history of European prehistory, when many excavations proceeded without appreciating the stratigraphic complexities of sites.

I have checked with Alain Froment and Johannes Krause on the status of this bone. The bone sample was taken from a tibia fragment that was not clearly associated with the rest of the collection. None of the Cro-Magnon human remains has yet yielded a radiocarbon date, and Alain indicates that the organic carbon is gone. So the current paper does not challenge the Cro-Magnon date, it merely subtracts an intrusive element.


References

Blogging in biological anthropology profile

Fri, 2013-04-26 10:53 -- John Hawks

Nature's "SpotOn" feature has interviewed University of Rhode Island biological anthropologist Holly Dunsworth about her social media mastery: "Social Media for Science Outreach – A Case Study: Blogging about Evolution".

I also saw the blog as an opportunity to not only to find my voice, but to be comfortable doing so in public. Having been confined to a few academic papers and one reference book, I was excited to be writing about my field, and beyond, with immediate publication and full editorial control. I also hoped that blogging would open up other new opportunities. Recently I wrote a post covering many of the outcomes, direct or indirect, from my participation in social media, especially on The Mermaid’s Tale, here.

I don't remember if I've linked Holly's post, "You gonna blog that?" but it is well worthwhile as a discussion of the use of blogging in the development of a career in biological anthropology.

Turning eyes toward the future

Fri, 2013-04-26 09:52 -- John Hawks

The Guardian covers a story on risks to humanity: "How are humans going to become extinct?" The occasion for the story seems to be Cambridge University's desire to have a parallel to Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute:

The Future of Humanity project at Oxford is part of a trend towards focusing research on such big questions. The institute was launched by the Oxford Martin School, which brings together academics from across different fields with the aim of tackling the most "pressing global challenges".

There are also ambitions at Cambridge University to investigate such threats to humanity.

Lord Rees, the Astronomer Royal and former president of the Royal Society, is backing plans for a Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.

"This is the first century in the world's history when the biggest threat is from humanity," says Lord Rees.

I'm thinking quite a lot about how to present future visions of humanity, as this is a big part of my MOOC course. The tough part about a critical view of developing technologies is that the critics are rarely well-versed in the technical details, therefore they focus too intently on unrealistic or unachievable outcomes. But then, the forefront of technical innovation is so often led by young researchers who aren't deeply buried in the midden of scientific societies. Do institutes like this make a difference? Or are they (as some critics of NIH big project science point out) simply full employment schemes for ethicists?

Whichever is the case, studying the human future should involve a much deeper perspective on human evolution, and a solid grasp of evolutionary processes. That's what I'm working to build.

Paleofuture radio MOOCs

Fri, 2013-04-26 08:03 -- John Hawks

The Chronicle of Higher Ed takes us to a time in the past, when massive radio correspondence courses were the wave of the future, including at my alma mater, Kansas State: "Before MOOCs: 'Colleges of the Air'".

Finally, even when students endured the isolation and passivity of this new mode of learning, conquered the temptations of popular radio programs, and finished a course, it wasn’t clear what that meant. Students in Kansas State’s radio classes received certificates verifying they had participated in “the college of the air,” but these were not the same as real diplomas. Other colleges tried to make the classes count for university credit: Between 1923 and 1940, 13 institutions offered courses for credit, and nearly 10,000 students enrolled. But a mere 17 percent actually received credit, and by the 1940-41 academic year, there was only one radio course in the United States for which a student could earn credit—and nobody enrolled in it.

Things have changed technologically, of course, which brings distance education within the learning patterns of more and more students. In my one course, starting in January, already as many students are signed up as the entire number that enrolled for credit in these 1930's radio courses nationwide. We won't be offering credit in this go-round, but that landscape is also changing rapidly.

The game theory exam story

Thu, 2013-04-25 10:42 -- John Hawks

UCLA animal behavior professor Peter Nonacs describes his experiment in learning by doing: "Cheating to Learn: How a UCLA professor gamed a game theory midterm".

So last quarter I had an intriguing thought while preparing my Game Theory lectures. Tests are really just measures of how the Education Game is proceeding. Professors test to measure their success at teaching, and students take tests in order to get a good grade. Might these goals be maximized simultaneously? What if I let the students write their own rules for the test-taking game? Allow them to do everything we would normally call cheating?

Naturally, nearly the entire class decided to work together.

This is what I consistently find when I do game theory experiments with my classes. Students who work hard and contribute always tolerate free riders. When I explicitly point out the apparent unfairness of the situation, students sometimes articulate frustration with free riders, but shrug their shoulders. If Nonacs thinks he has taught them something new, he should sit in more classes.

An Australopithecus sediba paean

Thu, 2013-04-25 08:32 -- John Hawks

Kate Wong: "Is Australopithecus sediba the Most Important Human Ancestor Discovery Ever?"

Second—and this may sound a little insidery, but it’s critical–the way Berger and his collaborators are studying the finds and disseminating what they learn represents a real departure from the cloak-and-dagger manner in which paleoanthropological investigations often proceed. Berger has assembled a huge team of specialists to work on the remains and has made the project open access, with a policy of granting permission to any paleoanthropologist who asks to see the original fossils. He has also sent out scores of replicas to institutions around the world, and routinely brings casts of the bones—even ones that his team has yet to formally describe–to professional meetings to share with other researchers. This can only improve the quality of the science that comes out of the project and may well inspire other teams to be more forthcoming with their own data.

Malapa is the perfect site at the perfect time. Many people have scoured that area looking for something like Malapa. If they had found it in 1950 we would have the skeletons, but would have lost much of the context. The open approach is fundamental to the science because it enables the best people to do their best work.

Is Au. sediba the most important ever? As Wong writes, we must match the find with the moment. Clearly right now, Malapa poses fundamentally new questions and provides evidence to address them. It is not alone: Denisova likewise has produced (and is still producing) vast reams of new data and raising new, unforeseen questions. Other key sites belong in this league: Sima de los Huesos, Dmanisi.

We have yet to see the full importance of these sites, as they are still unfolding. It is our job to find the contradictions between these new finds and our earlier hypotheses, and use them to discover the real story.

Diamond's "World" is not enough

Wed, 2013-04-24 11:45 -- John Hawks

Rex Golub reviews Jared Diamond's book, The World Until Yesterday, and tries to explain why it rubs anthropologists the wrong way: "Anthropology, Footnoted: Jared Diamond’s The World Until Yesterday". Golub works in Papua New Guinea, the area of the world Diamond most closely examines in his book.

Diamond has surely visited much more of the country than the highlands, but his intuitions about the country seem fundamentally shaped by the highlands. His immersion in that area, I believe, is the origin of his view that colonialism brings benefits, that people are willing to trade their old ways for new, and that imperial conquest brings few problems—in the long term. Then again, Diamond’s tone-deafness regarding these issues might be related to his scientific background. Bird species are morphologically distinct, but human communities in Papua New Guinea lack bright and clear boundaries. Cultures, languages, and subsistence techniques ooze across the landscape, passing through villages and hamlets with a mobility totally different than the learned behavior of birds. The issues at the heart of population ecology are calories, birthrates, and morbidity while the central topics of legitimate and empowering governance are dignity, freedom, and quality of life—the things we fight for, but not the sort of thing that you learn about studying avifauna. Only people, not birds, would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Golub approaches the question of "What does an anthropologist have to offer?" but doesn't give a crystal clear answer. The anthropologist considers complexity and treats people as people, not birds -- to be sure. But is Diamond's account of small-scale societies doing anything different from what Marvin Harris might have done? If The World Until Yesterday were a dissertation, would it earn its writer a PhD in anthropology today?

I'm inclined to think that cultural anthropology as it exists in the world today actually includes Jared Diamond...

Student attention spans are variable

Tue, 2013-04-23 10:29 -- John Hawks

There is much discussion in online education about the "15-minute rule": that content longer than 15 minutes will lose students' attention. Part of this is because of the intrinsic pain of watching videos on a computer. But part is rooted in classroom observations, that students in lectures tend to become distracted and lose their attention for a lecturer after some period of time. Interestingly, the education research shows that this is more complicated. For example, Karen Wilson and James Korn [1] found that individual variations among students swamped any time effect for attention and effective recall or note taking.

It is clear that students' attention does vary during lectures, but the literature does not support the perpetuation of the 10- to 15-min attention estimate. Perhaps the only valid use of this parameter is as a rhetorical device to encourage teachers to develop ways to maintain student interest in the classroom. If psychologists and other educators continue to promote such a parameter as an empirically based estimate, they need to support it with more controlled research. Beyond that, teachers must do as much as possible to increase students' motivation to “pay attention” as well as try to understand what students are really thinking about during class.

Probably the most useful bit is this:

The information processing that occurs during classroom tasks resembles a large working memory task (D. J. LaVoie, personal communication, March 21, 2005). Students receive information from the instructor and must hold the information long enough to record it in their notes or do whatever else they need to do with it. Whether students will be able to maintain their attention in class depends on their working memory capacity as well as their motivation and arousal (Pashler, 1998).

This suggests that instructors should provide multiple cues to promote effective use of working memory during their classroom presentations. Specific callouts to reading materials -- preferably search terms in an ebook -- might be helpful. And visualizations ought to be consistent between lecture and readings, so that students can calibrate their note taking.

As for online presentations, I still think that short is better. But more to the point, they should also be calibrated to other material, such as online readings and quizzes, so that note taking will be more productive.


References

  1. Wilson K, Korn JH. Attention During Lectures: Beyond Ten Minutes. Teaching of Psychology. 2007;34(2):85 - 89.

Cultural neuroscience and pedigree-based neuroimaging

Tue, 2013-04-23 09:34 -- John Hawks

I've been meaning for awhile to link Daniel Lende's thoughtful post on how cultural neuroscience relates to anthropology: "Advances in cultural neuroscience". This is a field that has been taking shape over the last few years, with psychologists, geneticists and neuroscientists collaborating to take on questions about how culture and genetics interact to produce human behavior. But breaking down human behavior into measurable chunks is not so easy:

As for theoretical models, cultural psychology has generally taken a trait-based approach to culture – individualism vs. collectivism, for example. This approach, and its increasing use of genetics, has led to a more factor-based approach to explaining variation. The culture measure contributes this much to the outcome variable, and the gene marker this much. This discrete approach to measuring variables is both powerful and reductive. It generates results quickly, leads to better comparability across studies, and can provide broad outlines of what variables are at play with what sorts of problems. That said, the anthropological concept of “culture” is hard to reduce to just one measure, for that misses the immersive, interactive, and shared dimensions of culture – the really operative parts of the concept.

The problems here are very much like those facing complex trait genetics more generally. We won't get answers to many questions until we are able to look at much larger samples of people. And because the motivating factors for behavior are often very personal and local, we need to compare close relatives and members of individual communities on a massive scale.

I am thinking explicitly about the "missing heritability" problem in human genetics. One solution to this problem is that the causal genes are rare, meaning that they can be most productively identified by comparing relatives to each other. Those relatives need to be embedded in large pedigrees for the comparisons to have any statistical power to test associations.

Why should we expect studies of brain imaging to be any different? These studies are famously subject to the "dead fish" problem; small random differences between cases and controls show up as statistically important. Moreover, in small samples the appearance of correlations among uncorrelated variables creates a severe problem. The power to examine small differences between individuals randomly drawn from a population will be swamped out by variations throughout the brain. By comparing large sets of relatives, it may become possible to get some traction on the relationship of small brain differences and behavior. By looking within local communities in a stratified design, it should be possible for neuroscientists to pick apart the cultural influences on brain development from the genetic and individual influences. But there has been relatively little pedigree-based or community-based neuroimaging (much of it done on captive primates, not people).

I raise this issue to reinforce what Lende has written about anthropology: These kinds of community-based and family-based approaches are naturals for anthropologists. And they provide a way for cultural neuroscientists to move beyond the "East versus West" comparisons of America and China, and move toward a much finer-grained understanding of how genetic and cultural levels of causation may interact within individuals.

A future beneath the yellow sky

Mon, 2013-04-22 22:43 -- John Hawks

Why am I linking this story in the NY Times about the extreme levels of pollution in Beijing? ("Pollution Is Radically Changing Childhood in China’s Cities")

Levels of deadly pollutants up to 40 times the recommended exposure limit in Beijing and other cities have struck fear into parents and led them to take steps that are radically altering the nature of urban life for their children.

Parents are confining sons and daughters to their homes, even if it means keeping them away from friends. Schools are canceling outdoor activities and field trips. Parents with means are choosing schools based on air-filtration systems, and some international schools have built gigantic, futuristic-looking domes over sports fields to ensure healthy breathing.

...because indoor pollution (from cooking fires) has already been a selection pressure on many human populations, including some high-altitude populations where hypoxia combines with carbon monoxide. It is one thing to think about the future of human adaptation to extremes in space, or extreme lifespan, or genetic engineering. It is another thing entirely to see the future of some parts of the world as an exaggerated version of the Industrial Revolution, childhoods of deepening smog.

Tags: 

Mountain gorilla visit

Sun, 2013-04-21 17:23 -- John Hawks

Chimpanzee researcher Maureen McCarthy describes a visit to Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda, to see the mountain gorillas: "Uganda's other great apes".

Like chimpanzees, gorillas are very closely related to humans and can easily catch the illnesses we carry. Just one outbreak of a respiratory infection could be enough to wipe out an entire gorilla group, or worse.

Though this may seem like a bleak state of affairs, mountain gorillas are actually heralded as a conservation success story. Their numbers have increased significantly in recent decades as a result of conservation efforts linked to ecotourism. Tourists flock to Uganda each year to visit these famous residents. Now it was our turn.

McCarthy's earlier posts, sort of a field journal about her work with wild chimpanzees in Uganda, are worth exploring.

Paths through MOOCs

Sat, 2013-04-20 23:58 -- John Hawks

I've been doing a lot of tracking of massive open online courses, including enrolling in several of them, as research for my upcoming course, "Human Evolution: Past and Future".

A new site, "MOOC News and Reviews" has begun reporting on a range of MOOCs and research surrounding them. A recent post reports on the pathways that different students take through courses, in terms of watching videos, completing quizzes and assignments, and tracking the course's progress week by week: "Not All Online Students Are the Same: A Summary of Stanford’s MOOC User Study.

Using these tags, the researchers were able to predict how many would take the final exam within an accuracy of 9%. The graphic above illustrates some of the “prototypical” trajectories that students followed, but Kizelcec et al. identified over 20,000 different trajectories through a single course! As the graphic below shows, a student could “audit” the first lessons, fall “behind” for one and then “track” a few, drop “out” for one and then “audit” the next before taking the final.

I find this to be one of the most empowering aspects of teaching a MOOC. People can engage in the content at the level that makes sense for their own level of interest and preparation. Also, the huge range of skills and interests in people taking these courses may enable new networks of learning. As the linked article suggests:

The researchers leave unanswered a question that might make the biggest difference to anyone who is taking a large online class. What if the class itself can be considered a resource as opposed to a course? Will we be seeing mobile apps and news streams from our classmates, coming soon?

That's how I'm approaching my class. Every part of the content may be reused outside the course, and most will be useful far beyond the enrolled students. We'll be making materials available for use in many contexts including for K-12 students and teachers. Most of the videos will be useful as stand-alone introductions to topics in human evolution, and lab materials can be used in other courses. In other words, it's the ultimate mix-and-match.

Meanwhile, the NY Times has an article that is moderately skeptical of MOOCs, from the perspective of a student: "Two Cheers for Web U!".

The professor is, in most cases, out of students’ reach, only slightly more accessible than the pope or Thomas Pynchon. Several of my Coursera courses begin by warning students not to e-mail the professor. We are told not to “friend” the professor on Facebook. If you happen to see the professor on the street, avoid all eye contact (well, that last one is more implied than stated). There are, after all, often tens of thousands of students and just one top instructor.

Perhaps my modern history professor, Philip D. Zelikow, of the University of Virginia, put it best in his course introduction, explaining that his class would be a series of “conversations in which we’re going to talk about this course one to one” — except that one side (the student’s) doesn’t “get to talk back directly.” I’m not sure this fits the traditional definition of a conversation.

The article is worth reading for its trenchant remarks on the personalities of the professors.

Science fiction and "literary" approaches to climate change

Sat, 2013-04-20 12:30 -- John Hawks

NPR did a segment on how "literary" authors are using climate change as a plot hook: So Hot Right Now: Has Climate Change Created A New Literary Genre?".

Writers can be sneaky in this way. Read all 300 pages of Odds Against Tomorrow, and you won't see the phrase "climate change" once. Rich says that was intentional: "I think the language around climate change is horribly bankrupt and, for the most part, are examples of bad writing, really. And cliche — 'climate change,' as a phrase, is cliche. 'Global warming' is a cliche."

As far as Rich is concerned, climate change itself is a foregone conclusion. The story — the suspense, the romance — is in how we deal with it.

Ann Althouse comments:

Rich says "the novelist," but he means the literary novelist. This superior individual is the one who understands that it is his job to understand deeply what is happening deep inside. Those sci-fi genre writers might describe what happens to the exterior world, but the literary writer describes what that world does to us... to the heart... the human heart.

Personally I was amused by the idea that this "literary trend" was started by Michael Crichton's State of Fear. That would tend to indicate that the main qualification for "literary" is "money". This is another skirmish in the timeless battle between highbrow and lowbrow.

Of course, science fiction has been on the topic of climate change for a very long time. One way of looking at the genre of "science fiction" is that it treats scientists and science literate people as characters instead of caricatures. Verisimilitude about the science-literate invites a deeper consideration of the motives and blind spots that emerge in the minds of intelligent, skeptical people.

Fishing for white elephants

Fri, 2013-04-19 15:24 -- John Hawks

Barbara King notes the recent characterization of fish cooking residues on early Japanese pottery: "What 15,000 Years Of Cooking Fish Tells Us About Humanity". She focuses on the relationship between status-seeking and innovation:

The idea is that hunter-gatherers — who, during many periods and in many habitats, enjoyed enough abundance not to eat hand-to-mouth to survive — accorded special status to some foods. In discussing this possibility, Oliver Craig sent me an article published 10 years ago in the journal World Archaeology by Brian Hayden that establishes a good frame of reference. Hayden describes some Southeast Asian prehistoric societies, among the first to domesticate plants and animals, that he thinks also produced the first "luxury goods" — foods used in the context of ceremonial feasting.

Status imposes demands over and above survival, spurring innovation beyond what might be expected from mere subsistence requirements. Unlike survival, status-seeking selects for white elephants: costly and non-portable technologies.

AAA statement on sexual harassment in field projects

Tue, 2013-04-16 16:21 -- John Hawks

Following up on Saturday's post, "AAPA hears about ongoing abuse of students at field sites", the American Anthropological Association has issued a statement: "Zero tolerance for sexual harassment".

The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is shocked and dismayed to learn about the results of a recent survey reported at the April 2013 meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Knoxville, TN. The AAA has zero tolerance for sexual harassment in academic, professional, fieldwork or any other settings where our members work. While the AAA does not have adjudicatory authority over these matters, our Statement on Ethics: Code of Professional Responsibility sets out our clear expectation that anthropologists “…have a responsibility to maintain respectful relationships with others. In mentoring students, interacting with colleagues, working with clients, acting as a reviewer or evaluator, or supervising staff, anthropologists should comport themselves in ways that promote an equitable, supportive and sustainable workplace environment.”

We deplore the reported incidents of sexual harassment, and expect employers and institutions of higher education to enforce the law as well as their specific anti-harassment policies for implementing the law. While sexual harassment is an issue that affects men and women alike, women bear the greatest burden of these incidents by far. The AAA has a long-term commitment to monitoring the status of women in anthropology through the Committee on the Status of Women in Anthropology, renamed in 2011 the Committee on Gender Equity in Anthropology. We encourage harassment victims who do not feel that adequate protections are available through their employer or home institution to contact the Association’s Committee on Gender Equity in Anthropology confidentially for advice.

I appreciate how rapidly the AAA has acted to make this statement. It would be wonderful to see how pervasive these problems are in other subfields including archaeology and cultural anthropology.

Field sites are workplaces, although many are not supervised or sponsored by American universities. Naturally students at a field site run by their university should be protected by the university's policies on harassment and other workplace crimes, yet that responsibility has not been met in many cases, where student reports have been ignored. For field sites with inadequate policies or protections, I think it is especially important for the field of anthropology to take action to promote appropriate protocols and protections.

180 million Neandertals

Tue, 2013-04-16 14:58 -- John Hawks

Just got back proofs of a book chapter I have coming out soon with Zach Throckmorton. My favorite paragraph:

Nearly seven billion people inhabit our planet. At least six billion carry the genes of Neandertal ancestors. Inheritance from Neandertals makes up approximately 3% of the genomes of randomly chosen people outside sub-Saharan Africa today (Green et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010). A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows if we took all of the Neandertal genes from today’s human population, we would have enough raw material to make up 180 million Neandertals.

I love that because it makes the Neandertals into the evolutionary success story they really were. They succeeded by becoming part of us.

UPDATE (2013-04-18): You can tell from this excerpt how long edited book chapters can take to come out, as we've been more than seven billion for quite some time now! That's one of the changes we'll be making to the galleys.

Palming Homo erectus

Sun, 2013-04-14 17:22 -- John Hawks

New Scientist reports on Carol Ward's presentation at the AAPA meetings, describing a new metacarpal of Homo erectus from West Turkana: "Stone tools helped shape human hands". It is a third metacarpal, a bone that happens to be pretty different between known australopithecines and recent Homo. But strikingly none have yet been described for Homo before the Neandertals.

Because the fossil is younger than the first tools, Ward's team believe it is the first evidence of anatomy evolving to suit a new technology. As stone tools became more widespread, those who had the wrist structure to use them would have had an evolutionary advantage over their weaker-wristed kin. "The way we look today has been shaped by our behaviour over millions of years," says Ward.

The developmental change represented by this anatomy is a separate center of ossification at the base of the metacarpal leading to a pointy projection called the styloid process. That's a pretty interesting shift in development, and so I'm intrigued that it came closely after the appearance of Homo erectus. Ward also reported that the bone is very long, at the top end of the variation in living people and longer than any Neandertals. Another hint of big people in the Early Pleistocene of East Africa.

Pages

Subscribe to john hawks weblog RSS

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.