Flabbergasted again -- but maybe not quite so much

On the same romance readers' e-mail list where I reported that some people got all upset about the supposed lack of cleanliness in the Middle Ages, someone up and complained about romances where cousins get attracted to one another.  Her  reaction was "eeewwww!" She was complaining about this in Regency-era romances. Again, I'm somewhat flabbergasted, but not as badly as I was when I heard about the "cleanliness" issue. Well, at first I was.  Then I thought about it for a while, and after a while longer, I remembered stuff about kinship and marriage rules in various societies.  In the US, cousin marriages are mostly illegal, but in Britain, they are legal, but uncommon.  It isn't normally the pattern, any more, in the West, at least, to marry "family", which I suppose is why the woman had a "eeewwww!" reaction. I can kind of see this, if some romance writer tries to set this up in the modern US or the modern western world generally.  But in Regency England?  Jeez.  Cousin marriages were still fairly common.  Charles Darwin, at a slightly later period, married his cousin Emma Wedgewood(I mention this partly because it's the 200th anniversary of his birth, but that's another story).  Today, our culture considers "cousin marriage" pretty off-putting for a variety of reasons, but in other parts of the world, it's still going on, but has begun to decline, again for a variety of reasons. This is why I mentioned kinship and marriage rules at the beginning of this post -- in parts of the Middle East, cousin marriages are not only permissible, they are actually encouraged in some places, on the grounds that the man and the woman will probably be acquainted with one another to begin with, and doubtless reasonably compatible. A different perspective entirely, but perfectly normal in, say,Saudi Arabia, where(from our Western perspective, at least), most people don't have much choice.  Cousins from different lineages can marry in parts of Africa, too, and the rules can get awfully complicated.  And so on and so forth.  The thing is, every society has different rules and expectations about what makes a "good" marriage partner, and there are often other considerations as well(like keeping whatever it is, "in the family").  Plus, there may not be too many "suitable" marriage partners around, in a given "traditional" society, for a variety of reasons.

 

The point is, a lot of romance readers, even consumers of historical romance, just don't seem to  be aware of this.  It appears to me that many of them aren't even aware that societies and cultures around the world aren't "all the same" through time and space, and what applies in the modern West, doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere in the world, nor did it necessarily apply in earlier times. Cultures change and adapt.  But that isn't part of the "romance" world view, I guess, unless the writer is unusually sensitive.

 

Finally, if this sounds like I'm criticizing the romance genre, I'm not, really.  Basically,what appalls me is not the genre itself, although some romance novels are pretty silly, but the apparently limited world view of some "romance consumers".  It seems that these people can't get it through their heads that change happens, and that things like cleanliness standards and marriage rules change over time, too.  Which is ironic, because, in a way, romances are about change, especially if the writer has the heroine taking charge of her life in some way. But then, I'm not really qualified to comment further, as I'm not writing romance novels.  So I guess I'll shut up about this.  For now, at least.

Anne G

I've found still another fantastic anthropology/paleoanthropology blog!

Today, I'd like to introduce Ethan Fulwood's  The Caveman's Corner . Like me, he is self-taught in the intricacies of human evolution and anthropology, and I suppose, like me, he started from scratch.  He is also majoring in anthropology, which is what I did when in my misspent youth. Be that as it may, if this blog is any indication of his talent, when he learns more, he's really going to shine!  Welcome, Ethan Fulwood!

Anne G

Vexation, vexation, vexation

Late last week, I had a problem.  But it wasn't just my problem -- it was the problem of everybody on the list I happen to be on.  This is what is known as a "listserve", basically an early version of an e-mail list such as the numerous Yahoogroups lists.  It's called MEDIEV-L and is populated largely by a number of people in academic medieval history positions at various colleges and universities. So far, so good.  The trouble started when the program, run by, I think, the University of Kansas, began unsubscribing people.  It unsubscribed a lot of people, both academic and nonacademic.  The weird thing about this was, you could receive messages from MEDIEV-L, but if you tried to send them after the program took action, it rejected you, even if your address was exactly as it was before you got unsubbed.  The results were, to put it mildly, chaos for a day or two, until some people tried unsubbing themselves, and then resubscribing.  I tried this, and it worked, but before it worked, I sent out a bunch of test messages, just to see if they were getting through.  Which they finally did.  Three or four of them did, because I wasn't sure if any of them had gotten through.  Normally, if something like this happened, I would only send one such message.

 

But there was fallout.  After I managed to get through, and explained that I'd sent a lot of test messages, simply because I wasn't sure if the list was even working(I was assured that it was, but it was temporarily quiet), one of the people on the list sent me a really, really, snarky reply.  I mean, this guy was complaining because I'd sent several of "the same" messages, after explaining the reason!  He whined that he was getting something like 1000 of these messages.  I was really annoyed by that, and told him so, in no uncertain terms.  I'm prone to doing that in these situations.  And I do that because I've learned that some of these academics seem to think that they shouldn't have to deal with the Great Unwashed out there.  I pretty much told this guy to just use his delete button if he didn't want to read the messages.  Heck, I do this all the time.

 

For the record, I actually respect the work these people are doing.  None of these academic types are "in it for the money", or they wouldn't be in medieval studies, nor would they be teaching history classes in their respective colleges.  And I have learned a great deal from many of them.  Furthermore, several of them have been very, very, welcoming and helpful.  But there are a bunch of really "stuffy" types on this list, I'm sorry to say.  These "stuffies" apparently feel that they shouldn't ever have to deal with situations like this, and they sometimes come on as very, very unfriendly and unwelcoming.  Several years ago, I had one of these types complain to me privately that I was "taking up too much space" with my replies to various people.  Again, I pretty much told this particular lady off(politely, however; I was brought up to be polite).  She was pretty huffy.  I didn't miss her when she dropped out. 

 

This whole situation is interesting, because, as a result of basically gathering information from two different fields for my Great Medieval Science Fiction Masterpiece With Neandertals, I've also ended up on another listserve called ANTHRO-L. But what is even more interesting is, I was welcomed warmly when I first came on, and although I've been kind of "corrected" about some things I've said from time to time, I don't sense any stuffiness about these people at all.  They all just seem to be very, very welcoming.  Of course, if the discussions end up being about contemporary political and social arrangements, the discussions can get pretty heated(these kinds of discussions are not allowed on MEDIEV-L, and for good reason).  But still. . . .I've never, ever had the problem with snarky posts addressed to me, that I have on MEDIEV-L.  What I don't respect is an attitude of "superiority".  It's deadly.  And not just in medieval studies  But that's another story, for another blog, perhaps in another place.

 

 

Maybe it's simply because, (a) I let the anthropologists know I majored in anthropology, many moons ago, and(b),by the time I got to ANTHRO-L, I guess I'd absorbed enough information about Neandertals and human evolution generally, to discuss these subjects with what I hoped was some degree of intelligence.  On the other hand, I have no background in anything medieval, except books I'd read over the years, here and there.  And people in medieval studies have questioned some of the conclusions of some of these writers.   As I said, not everybody on that list has treated me as if I shouldn't be there asking questions; many of them have been extremely nice, and I correspond with a few of them on Facebook and similar venues.   Maybe it just happens that on the ANTHRO-L list, there are a couple of people who use science fiction in their coursework, or have tried or are in the process of writing, novels.  But there are two or three people on the MEDIEV-L list, who are writing novels, too, though they're not science fiction, let alone Great Medieval Science Fiction Masterpieces With Neandertals.  I really don't mind; I've said elsewhere that all writers and aspiring writers should stick together and help each other.  Being a writer is hard enough without  getting sand kicked in your face, metaphorically speaking. 

 

Or maybe it just has more to do with the type of people who are drawn to anthropology, v. the kind of people who seem to be drawn to medieval history.  For instance, the ANTHRO-L people make no pretense of being anything other than pretty politically liberal; I think a lot of this, for them, has to do with being exposed to cultures and ways of being not their own.  On the medieval list, I get the feeling that there are a fair number of political conservatives there, though the expression of this is pretty muted because the listowner doesn't like people fighting over contemporary problems that seem to mirror medieval ones(or vice versa). I'm in full agreement with the listowner about this, although he is not one of these apparent "conservatives" as far as I can tell.  For the record, I don't really mind that some people have ideas that differ from mine in this regard; academic or not, it would be a pretty dull world if everybody thought the same. 

 

But at bottom, I really don't much care for people who think, because they have studied some specialized body of knowledge, they can look down on those of us who haven't inhabited such rarified realms.  Not that I don't respect their work -- I do.  But the attitude that some of these people seem to exhibit -- that us ordinary folks have no business on their precious list, and have no right to even speak, appalls me.  This is one of the reasons why so many people end up on e-mail lists, only to lurk endlessly.  They are absolutely scared to ask any questions, for fear of their heads getting bitten off.  I should also add, for the record, that I encourage anybody who joins my own e-mail list, Paleoanthropology, Science, and Society, to speak up if they have questions, and join the conversation.  This is one of the best ways people learn anything. 

 

Apparently these "stuffies" on MEDIEV-L that haven't learned this.  And they don't even make allowances for computer "glitches".  I realize these academics don't have a lot of time to waste; I also respect that, and really make an effort not to pester the ones I've corresponded with.  It's not fair to them.  We all have lives utd we all need to respect each other. 

Anne G

An addition to the “anthropological” side of my novelistic research

I’ve just gotten through adding Hominin.net to my list of “anthropology and prehistory” links.  For those interested in that side of my ongoing researches, it’s quite comprehensive.  If you’re really interested, you can even download some pdfs – for free!  That doesn’t happen every day with these kinds of research papers.  I should know.  I have a lot of them, but no direct access.  Anyway, it’s there for anyone to enjoy, or use.

Anne G

Neandertals: Understandings and misunderstandings

In my previous post, I wrote about the celebration, at the La Chapelle aux Saintes museum, of the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the "Old Man of La Chapelle". This Neandertal fossil gave rise to a lot of "portraits" of Neandertals. Many of these portraits are not very accurate, because they didn't take into account the fact that the poor fellow had a bad case of arthritis(among other things). You too would probably have a bad case of arthritis if you had to live in a damp cave during a cold, clammy Ice Age! In any case, many of these portraits suggested Neandertals couldn't walk upright. On the other hand, there were portraits, even very early on, that came closer to what Neandertals might have actually looked like. Above is one early example. This is not the earliest, but people iin Zdenek Burian's time still believed that Neandertals walked bent kneed. And they aren't wearing much in the way of clothing(again, fur kilts, meaning they're too "primitive" to have figured out that they should be wearing more "adequate" clothing), and they look kind of "apish"

On the other hand, one of the earliest portraits of a Neandertal, makes them look endearingly human, in a way. This one looks kind of like a Neandertal version of Harry Potter's Hagrid. This particular portrait was published in a British popular journal soon after La Chapelle aux Saintes was described by Marcellin Boule(he is to blame for not noticing, or not bothing to describe, the fact that the "old man" had arthritis). Boule also emphasized what he thought were the "apish" qualities of Neandertals in general. It took another fifty years until two anatomists named Straus and Cave, reexamined La Chapelle aux Saintes, and realized the man's bent knees were the result of arthritis. Note: I've seen such "bent-kneed" elders myself, and they are perfectly "modern" people, as far as I know. In any case, it is slowly dawning on some reconstructors, that Neandertals most likely looked more like this "Hagrid", not like Burian's portraits. A lot of damage can be done

in science, by people who judge too hastily, and then rush into print. We are still dealing with some decidely odd ideas --- even among paleoanthropologists who should know better, --- about the supposed "inferiority" of Neandertals.

Anne G

Peche de l'Aze

The Afarensis blog(a worthwhile read, all on its own), had a post on what it called "interesting paleoanthropoligcal sites" yesterday. Due to a problem I had with the Compose Mode here(since solved), I wasn't able to post this, but there are links in the blog post to the archaeological sites of Sunghir, Russia and Peche de l'Aze Peche del'Aze is an especially important Neandertal site for two reasons: first, it appears to have been occupied over a long period of time, whether or continuously or not, and second, for the tool types found in some of its occupational layers.

These tool types are called "asinopodean" and are what archaeologists call "microtools" They are, as one would expect from their designation, rather small, flaked tools. These are of a type usually associated with "modern" humans, however and the archaeologists who are currently superivising the digs there, seem to think such tools may be present at other Neandertal sites, but either overlooked or unrecognized. In any case, there are a variety of these scrapers and "denticulated" tools, presumably used for a variety of tasks. There are a number of pictures, too, at the dig site. Here is one of them:

Note the tool that has a sharp point in the middle of the bottom row. This looks as if it might have been used as an awl or something similar --- perhaps to punch holes in skins for garmeents(n0, I don't think Neandertals wore fur kilts all the time, despite whatever pictures you might have seen) or to make skin bags for carrying, etc. If you look closely, some of the tools have notched "denticulate" appearances, as if they were used for smoothing wood. I wonder what that might have been for? I can guess, but I'll let you use your imaginations!

Anne G

John Hawks's Paleo Predictions

John Hawks has made some "paleoanthropological" predictions for 2008. Look at the last one. He says it's going to be a "big year" for Neandertals. And he doesn't mean some political candidates! Of course, IMO, no sane, sensible Neandertal would run for president of the US!.But that's another story, and that is precisely all I'm going to say about "politics" on this blog.
Anne G

Neandertal extinction, sort of

Happy 2008! This is my first post of the New Year. And, whenever I can't think of anything else to blog about, I'll find something about Neandertals. Or medieval stuff, since my Great Medieval Science Fiction Masterpiece contains both. Like today, for instance. National Geographic has a piece on the latest study on Neandertals. The study itself was written up in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Seems Eugene Morin, the archaeologist who conducted the study, concluded that an increasingly cold climate and glacial advances around 40,000 years ago caused some Neandertal extinctions all right. But. . . .he claims that because some food supplies dwindled(the site he studied had mostly reindeer/caribou bones) some of them adapted in ways that are traditionally claimed to be "modern". For instance, he claims they expanded their social networks. He also claims that "modern" humans didn't really "invade" Europe until about 10,000 years ago, and by that time, there weren't any Neandertals. Or maybe there were, sort of. They had, according to Morin adapted, and interbred and evolved in various ways, into "modern" humans.

Whether or not there's "anything" to this study, it's interesting, because other archaeological studies seem to suggest, rather strongly, that Neandertal behaviors were mostly, if not wholly, indistinguishable from "modern" ones, except for what nowadays would fall into the sphere of "cultural differences". It is these sorts of studies that partly form the basis of my story. No medieval "moderns" can recognize any significan behavioral differences between themselves and the Neandertals, who have come from a planet in a nearby solar system, to save "moderns" from themselves, though they do have some rather peculiar abilities which they carefully try t6o keep hidden from the "moderns. And no, they don't entirely "save humans from themselves". It would be nice if they could, though.
Anne G

Anthropologists make good writers!

I have a degree in anthropology. It's from long ago, and not very "useful", in the "real world", but. . . if I hadn't had that degree, I wouldn't have had the slightest idea of where to begin to start researching the "Neandertal" part of my Great Medieval Science Fiction Masterpiece With Neandertals! And I wouldn't have had the slightest idea of where to continue. The "medieval" part was harder, at least until I decided I was looking at a time and place where the culture was different from ours, but could be looked at in the ways anthropologists look at other cultures(and our own, current one, too). Once I did that, the writing wasn't easy, but I had a framework.

All of this is just a lead-in to the latest John Hawks blog. He interviewed Anne Weaver, the author of a delightful-sounding children's book, The Voyage of the Beetle. It's interesting sounding and relevant, because it's a children's book from the point of view of a beetle that sailed with Charles Darwin on the famous Beagle. I haven't read it, but I hear that kids enjoy it. And the author started out as an anthropologist!

I thinkk there's hope for all of us,
Anne G