- If your school is a subscriber, Browzine (pronounced "browsing," in the library sense) is a cool app that allows you to browse, read, and monitor academic journals. New issues are automatically displayed on your bookshelf, and they can be synced up with things like Zotero and Dropbox.
- GoSoapbox is an instant polling app (kind of like the clickers some universities utilize) that students can access and use with their smart devices (they all have them, and use them in class, anyway, so why not for education?!). Use this access code to play around with it: 403-011-389. There is a 30-day free trial, and then a $10/year fee for instructors.
- Feedly is a cool app that allows instructors to organize multimedia materials for teaching and students to designing assignments. It allows aggregation of web pages and other materials that are not easily captured via traditional programs (e.g., word processors, presentation software). Many have found this to be a good replacement for Google Reader.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Apps for education
I'm part of a Learning Community at UNCG called Technological Tools for Teaching, and the group sponsored an App Fair highlighting apps that others had found useful in an educational setting. So, I thought I'd share some of the more interesting, and potentially most useful, apps:
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Reconstructing subsistence during the Plio-Pleistocene
I just finished going through an interesting analysis by Michael Pante of the large mammal faunal assemblage from the site of JK2, which is in Bed III of Olduvai Gorge and dates to approximately 1.0 million years ago. The study in important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we have so few decently preserved faunal assemblages that date to this time period. What is more, JK2 preserves butchery marks, another rarity among sites of this age, which show definitely that hominins (in this case, probably Homo erectus) were cutting flesh from carcasses and breaking open bones for marrow.
Ultimately, Pante uses the frequency and anatomical placement of the butchery marks and the carnivore tooth marks to argue that Homo erectus was gaining early access to carcasses (that is, before other carnivores had a chance to consume the carcass). This is potentially important, because there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of meat in the diets of early hominins. If meat was a staple of the diet, it is possible that it partly drove other evolutionary changes such as increased brain size (meat is easy to digest, so if you could free up energy that is usually channeled to the guts to process food, it can be diverted to other important organs, namely the brain). Pante compares the frequencies of butchery and tooth marks in the fossil assemblage to experimental assemblages of bones exposed to various processes:
While I agree that Homo erectus probably gained early access to carcasses, what struck me is the fact that the JK2 assemblage really does not match up very well with any of the experiments. I have run across this myself in analyses of other assemblages, and I can't help but wonder that the experimental scenarios that we've come up with so far, while extremely useful, simply are not comprehensive enough to model the complexities we're seeing at these Plio-Pleistocene sites, a point that Pante concedes in the paper. Regardless, this paper provides additional data on a critical, and currently poorly sampled, time period.
In my mind, two of the most important things that Plio-Pleistocene taphonomists need to work out are (1) reaching consensus on exactly how we identify marks on bones and (2) producing experimental bone assemblages that can test a wider variety of potential behavioral scenarios.
References:
Pante, MC (2013). The larger mammal fossil assemblage from JK2, Bed III, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: implications for the feeding behavior of Homo erectus. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 68-82.
Ultimately, Pante uses the frequency and anatomical placement of the butchery marks and the carnivore tooth marks to argue that Homo erectus was gaining early access to carcasses (that is, before other carnivores had a chance to consume the carcass). This is potentially important, because there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of meat in the diets of early hominins. If meat was a staple of the diet, it is possible that it partly drove other evolutionary changes such as increased brain size (meat is easy to digest, so if you could free up energy that is usually channeled to the guts to process food, it can be diverted to other important organs, namely the brain). Pante compares the frequencies of butchery and tooth marks in the fossil assemblage to experimental assemblages of bones exposed to various processes:
- Hammerstone-only, in which humans cut the flesh from bones and then broke them open with stones to access the marrow
- Carnivore-only, in which carnivores (mainly hyenas) consumed carcasses
- Hammerstone-to-carnivore, in which humans cut the flesh from bones, broke them open for the marrow and, afterwards, carnivores scavenged the remains
- Whole bone-to-carnivore, in which humans cut the flesh from the bones but left everything else (flesh scraps and marrow) for carnivores to scavenge
- Vulture-to-hominin-to-carnivore, in which vultures ate some of the flesh, humans broke open the bones for marrow, and then carnivores scavenged the leftovers
While I agree that Homo erectus probably gained early access to carcasses, what struck me is the fact that the JK2 assemblage really does not match up very well with any of the experiments. I have run across this myself in analyses of other assemblages, and I can't help but wonder that the experimental scenarios that we've come up with so far, while extremely useful, simply are not comprehensive enough to model the complexities we're seeing at these Plio-Pleistocene sites, a point that Pante concedes in the paper. Regardless, this paper provides additional data on a critical, and currently poorly sampled, time period.
In my mind, two of the most important things that Plio-Pleistocene taphonomists need to work out are (1) reaching consensus on exactly how we identify marks on bones and (2) producing experimental bone assemblages that can test a wider variety of potential behavioral scenarios.
References:
Pante, MC (2013). The larger mammal fossil assemblage from JK2, Bed III, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: implications for the feeding behavior of Homo erectus. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 68-82.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
In the Garden of Beasts
The other night my wife, Noell, and I attended a book discussion hosted by the UNCG libraries of Erik Larsen's In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin. The book was an excellent read, and follows the exploits of William E. Dodd, the first American ambassador to a Germany ruled by Adolf Hitler, and his family. From Amazon.com:
Perhaps the two most important events were the German experience in World War I and the onset of depression in 1929. Germany ended the war having defeated one enemy in the East (Tsarist Russia) and, in the west, with her armies situated on foreign soil. The German people had to reconcile this with the fact that their government signed an armistice and then negotiated a treaty in 1919 that laid much of the blame for the war on Germany (a not unrealistic interpretation of events) and forced it to concede complete defeat. Germany was thus on the lookout for scapegoats. Dr. Schleunes also pointed out that in 1928, when the German economy was relatively strong, the Nazi party received a paltry 2.7% of the vote. However, in the years after 1929 (the onset of the depression in the U.S. and elsewhere), the Nazis secured ever larger percentages, eventually capturing 40% by the 1930s. Germans appeared, in other words, to be looking for a political party that could restore Germany to her rightful (as many saw it) place among the world powers while, at the same time, providing an explanation for the humiliating defeat in World War I.
This is the situation that Dodd, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, stepped into when he arrived as ambassador in 1933. The consensus among the discussion group was that, despite his best intentions and efforts, Dodd was mostly a failure as ambassador. Hitler obviously did not steer a moderate course, and Dodd resigned his post in 1934. There was quite a bit of discussion on why exactly he was unsuccessful. I think Noell has it mostly right when she argued that Dodd simply was not interested playing political games: in order for an ambassador to succeed, they need people to like them, they need to compromise, and they need to tell people what they want to hear. Dodd really didn't have any of these qualities (depending on how you feel, this could be to his credit or discredit). During his BookTV talk, Larsen was asked his thoughts on Dodd's performance. He gave Dodd a B+ grade, stating further that no one was likely to have succeeded in such a position (a point that the discussion group touched on as well).
One of the more eye-opening things about the book (at least for me) was the level of anti-Semitism within the U.S. State Department. Everyone talked about the so-called "Jewish Problem." One of the audience members, when referring to a particular individual in the book that committed suicide because of her Jewish ancestry, asked how one could tell whether or not someone was actually Jewish. This question became particularly important after the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which encroached on, or even eliminated in many cases, the rights of Jews in Germany. Apparently, one had to track down, and keep, the baptismal certificates of your grandparents (there is no equivalent in Judaism) to demonstrate that they were not Jewish. If one had two, three, or four Jewish grandparents, was part of a religious community (i.e., they went to Synagogue), or married to someone of Jewish ancestry, then they were considered Jewish. If one only had a single Jewish grandparent (and in possession of baptismal certificates for the other three), then they were not considered Jewish. (All of this, of course, rested on false assumption that there was some fixed, identifiable thing called the "Jewish race.")
A couple of interesting tidbits that I learned during the discussion, thanks largely to Dr. Schleunes :
The time is 1933, the place, Berlin, when William E. Dodd becomes America's first ambassador to Hitler's Germany in a year that proved to be a turning point in history. A mild-mannered professor from Chicago, Dodd brings along his wife, son, and flamboyant daughter, Martha. At first Martha is entranced by the parties and pomp, and the handsome young men of the Third Reich with their infectious enthusiasm for restoring Germany to a position of world prominence. Enamored of the "New Germany," she has one affair after another, including with the surprisingly honorable chief of the Gestapo, Rudolf Diels. But as evidence of Jewish persecution mounts, confirmed by chilling first-person testimony, her father telegraphs his concerns to a largely indifferent State Department back home. Dodd watches with alarm as Jews are attacked, the press is censored, and drafts of frightening new laws begin to circulate. As that first year unfolds and the shadows deepen, the Dodds experience days full of excitement, intrigue, romance-and ultimately, horror when a climatic spasm of violence and murder reveals Hitler's true character and ruthless ambitionWe were lucky enough to have Dr. Karl Schleunes, a professor emeritus of history at UNCG and an expert on early 20th century Germany, lead the discussion. As Dr. Schleunes summarized it, Dodd (who was FDR's third or fourth choice) was sent to do two things: (1) to negotiate the payment of U.S. loans to Germany (American banks had made huge loans to help bail out the German economy in the aftermath of World War I), and (2) to steer Hitler along a more moderate path. He then summarized the historical context that preceded Dodd's appointment.
Perhaps the two most important events were the German experience in World War I and the onset of depression in 1929. Germany ended the war having defeated one enemy in the East (Tsarist Russia) and, in the west, with her armies situated on foreign soil. The German people had to reconcile this with the fact that their government signed an armistice and then negotiated a treaty in 1919 that laid much of the blame for the war on Germany (a not unrealistic interpretation of events) and forced it to concede complete defeat. Germany was thus on the lookout for scapegoats. Dr. Schleunes also pointed out that in 1928, when the German economy was relatively strong, the Nazi party received a paltry 2.7% of the vote. However, in the years after 1929 (the onset of the depression in the U.S. and elsewhere), the Nazis secured ever larger percentages, eventually capturing 40% by the 1930s. Germans appeared, in other words, to be looking for a political party that could restore Germany to her rightful (as many saw it) place among the world powers while, at the same time, providing an explanation for the humiliating defeat in World War I.
This is the situation that Dodd, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, stepped into when he arrived as ambassador in 1933. The consensus among the discussion group was that, despite his best intentions and efforts, Dodd was mostly a failure as ambassador. Hitler obviously did not steer a moderate course, and Dodd resigned his post in 1934. There was quite a bit of discussion on why exactly he was unsuccessful. I think Noell has it mostly right when she argued that Dodd simply was not interested playing political games: in order for an ambassador to succeed, they need people to like them, they need to compromise, and they need to tell people what they want to hear. Dodd really didn't have any of these qualities (depending on how you feel, this could be to his credit or discredit). During his BookTV talk, Larsen was asked his thoughts on Dodd's performance. He gave Dodd a B+ grade, stating further that no one was likely to have succeeded in such a position (a point that the discussion group touched on as well).
One of the more eye-opening things about the book (at least for me) was the level of anti-Semitism within the U.S. State Department. Everyone talked about the so-called "Jewish Problem." One of the audience members, when referring to a particular individual in the book that committed suicide because of her Jewish ancestry, asked how one could tell whether or not someone was actually Jewish. This question became particularly important after the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which encroached on, or even eliminated in many cases, the rights of Jews in Germany. Apparently, one had to track down, and keep, the baptismal certificates of your grandparents (there is no equivalent in Judaism) to demonstrate that they were not Jewish. If one had two, three, or four Jewish grandparents, was part of a religious community (i.e., they went to Synagogue), or married to someone of Jewish ancestry, then they were considered Jewish. If one only had a single Jewish grandparent (and in possession of baptismal certificates for the other three), then they were not considered Jewish. (All of this, of course, rested on false assumption that there was some fixed, identifiable thing called the "Jewish race.")
A couple of interesting tidbits that I learned during the discussion, thanks largely to Dr. Schleunes :
- Hitler did not actually become a German citizen until 1932, the year before he was named chancellor (he was Austrian)
- The Nazi government defended laws that outlawed marriage between Jews and non-Jewish Germans by citing American miscegenation legislation, which prohibited breeding between whites and blacks
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Social darwinism in the gilded and progressive ages
I just finished reading (or, more correctly, listening to, as my commute provides ample time for audio books) an interesting book by Evan Thomas, "The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898". There is a lot of intriguing stuff in here, and the gilded and progressive ages in America were fascinating times for a number of reasons, but what struck me, as an anthropologist, was the pervasive role that social Darwinism played in American foreign and domestic policy (as exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt, senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst). The idea that superior groups (however that is defined) were meant to out-compete inferior groups in the "struggle for existence" served to justify much of America's expansionist and imperialist policies towards Spain and the populations then under their rule (Black Cubans and Filipinos).
CNN has a wonderful service called BookTV, where you can watch authors give talks on their books. I haven't seen Thomas's clip yet, but you can find his talk here, a book discussion here, and a nice review of the book here.
UPDATE 3.23.13
I just watched Thomas's BookTV segment. He summed up the book (as they always do...this is actually a good way to figure out if the book will interest you), and then took some questions from the audience. The most interesting question probably dealt with parallels between the war fever of 1898 and that of 2003 just before the invasion of Iraq. Thomas himself was a Hawk in 2003, and he discussed how attitudes have changed, just as they have for the 1898 conflicts.
CNN has a wonderful service called BookTV, where you can watch authors give talks on their books. I haven't seen Thomas's clip yet, but you can find his talk here, a book discussion here, and a nice review of the book here.
UPDATE 3.23.13
I just watched Thomas's BookTV segment. He summed up the book (as they always do...this is actually a good way to figure out if the book will interest you), and then took some questions from the audience. The most interesting question probably dealt with parallels between the war fever of 1898 and that of 2003 just before the invasion of Iraq. Thomas himself was a Hawk in 2003, and he discussed how attitudes have changed, just as they have for the 1898 conflicts.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Neandertals in Denmark? Maybe not...
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the range and, thus, the colonization abilities of Neandertals. Traditionally, the Neandertal world was thought to be limited to western, central, and eastern Europe, north Africa, and western Asia, with Uzbekistan representing the group's easternmost outpost. However, more recent mitochondrial DNA analyses of human fossils from Siberia effectively extended the known Neandertal range some 2,000 km to the northeast, and excavations at other sites now show that they inhabited a wide variety of habitats, including coastal areas and relatively rugged mid-altitude zones. Basically, Neandertals appear to have been much more adaptable that we've historically given them credit for.
My colleagues and I just published a study, which was funded by Aarhus University, on some ~120,000-year-old fallow deer skeletons from Denmark that were thought for many years to have been butchered. Butchered animals bones, of course, mean that humans were around and, given the age of the finds, Neandertals were considered the most likely culprit. If the remains were indeed butchered, this would have been the earliest and best evidence for a human presence in the region before the end of the last Ice Age (about 18,000 years ago).
After having looked the bones over, however, we were forced to conclude that there is no definitive evidence that Neandertals, or anyone else for that matter, butchered these animals. The bones are indeed broken, and one of them does show marks that could be interpreted as originating from a stone knife. The reason we're so cautious is that no compelling reason exists to attribute the breakage or the mark to anything other than natural processes.
Although this isn't huge, international news, it did make quite a splash in the Danish media. You can check out some of these stories (if you don't speak Danish, I suggest Google Translate, it does a fair job):
UPDATE 3.28.13
Here is a poster that Trine recently presented highlighting her plans for future work in Denmark. The most interesting aspect will involve paleoenvironmental reconstructions that will attempt to highlight areas most likely to have been occupied by Neandertal groups.
My colleagues and I just published a study, which was funded by Aarhus University, on some ~120,000-year-old fallow deer skeletons from Denmark that were thought for many years to have been butchered. Butchered animals bones, of course, mean that humans were around and, given the age of the finds, Neandertals were considered the most likely culprit. If the remains were indeed butchered, this would have been the earliest and best evidence for a human presence in the region before the end of the last Ice Age (about 18,000 years ago).
After having looked the bones over, however, we were forced to conclude that there is no definitive evidence that Neandertals, or anyone else for that matter, butchered these animals. The bones are indeed broken, and one of them does show marks that could be interpreted as originating from a stone knife. The reason we're so cautious is that no compelling reason exists to attribute the breakage or the mark to anything other than natural processes.
 |
| Reconstruction of a rather sunburned Neandertal (courtesy of Berlingske Tidende) |
Although this isn't huge, international news, it did make quite a splash in the Danish media. You can check out some of these stories (if you don't speak Danish, I suggest Google Translate, it does a fair job):
- Here's the Aarhus University press release
- Stories from the larger national newspapers Berlingske Tidende and Politiken, and the smaller, regional newspaper Jyske Vestkysten
Here is a poster that Trine recently presented highlighting her plans for future work in Denmark. The most interesting aspect will involve paleoenvironmental reconstructions that will attempt to highlight areas most likely to have been occupied by Neandertal groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)