For now, this page includes samples work from students in both my Introduction to Anthropology (SO 151) and Introduction to Archaeology and Human Prehistory (SO 254). Please note the course numbers listed in the table of contents.

Table of Contents

The Juniata College Program for Area Residents
by Ian Bannon
Introduction to Anthropology (SO 151)
December 9, 1998

In 1987, there was a nation-wide trend in college of rapidly shrinking incoming freshman classes. This came about, large in part, because American society was sending the last few remnants of the "Baby Boomer" generation, and the population wave they created, through the education system. Colleges all over were experiencing a sudden drop in the size of their student bodies after experiencing many years of constant growth. In an effort to both increase enrollment and serve the community, Juniata began its "Huntingdon County Program." The program began as a local alternative to larger schools in the area, such as Shippensburg and the Pennsylvania State University, for adults wishing to return to school and continue their education. It only covered people living in Huntingdon County in 1987, but extended to include the residents of Bedford, Blair, Centre, Fulton, Franklin, Huntingdon, Juniata, and Mifflin counties by the end of 1989. In 1990, the program was renamed the Program for Area Residents (PAR).

In my year and a half at Juniata College, I have heard mixed impressions of the PAR students from their "typical" student counter-parts (those, like myself, who attended college directly out of high school). Reactions toward and interactions with PAR students have varied from students who make an effort to develop friendships with them, to those who are content to sit around in their dorm rooms and rattle off lists of why they do not like PAR students. I know that my experiences with PAR students have left me wavering between both views from time to time. This situation is what prompted me to investigate the views held by both groups toward each other and to try to find a means of improving the relationship.

I chose to conduct interviews with members of two groups, PAR students and typical students, to find out their common beliefs, misconceptions, and stereotypes about the other group. I interviewed professors as well because they were a neutral party with extended experience in the situation and, as one of them said, "Students don’t realize how much you can read in their body language and attitudes toward each other from the front of the class." I narrowed my scope down to degree-seeking freshmen in both the PAR (specifically the older individuals returning to education) and typical student groups. This decision was made based on a few reasons. First, all degree-seeking members of both typical and PAR student groups are required to take a freshman writing course, College Writing Seminar (CWS), during the fall of their freshman year. Because of this, the CWS classes present a sample of students that one is hard pressed to find at other times and locations. The PAR students are split up among the different CWS sections. In each section, students of all backgrounds, interests, Programs of Emphasis (POE’s, Juniata’s version of a major), locations on campus, etc. meet together four hours a week. In addition, CWS is largely based on group work and in class discussions, forcing PAR students and typical students to interact.

There is usually a large segregation between POE’s, especially between the natural science oriented students and more humanities/social work oriented students. This is mostly due to the fact that the two departments are housed in separate buildings. While students are required to fulfill a core curriculum consisting of a sampling of many different areas of study, in keeping with the liberal arts philosophy, this experience is usually nothing close to the immersion the students go through in their five-credit CWS course.

Upon entering into this project, I had many preconceived notions of what people from my three different survey groups would say. In hindsight, these boil down to the stereotypes that I have been presented with from other students on campus: PAR students are over-achieving kiss-ups and typical students are lazy drunks. Understanding that these represent extremes, I expected to get less condemning versions of answers along those lines or answers tainted in that manner from all groups concerned.

To be eligible for the PAR, one must be: a US citizen, an admissible resident of one of the counties listed above, out of high school for at least five years without schooling, a commuter, and the individual can not have been enrolled as a degree seeking student at Juniata for two or more years. In addition, the PAR has been used to account for other non-traditional students, such as high school students and the children of professors, who take classes at Juniata. Another common area for people to enter in the PAR is the Education Certification Program. With approval from the education department, students with a BS or BA from an accredited 4-year institution can return for a short time and get a teaching degree. When reviewing applicants, the college looks for such things as the students’ academic background, why they left and why they are returning, what they have done recently, how they have changed since high school, and their goals. (The Program for Area Residents 1998-99)

Accepted PAR students may enroll full or part-time, as either degree seeking or non-degree seeking status. They receive a reduced tuition that is equivalent to the Founder’s Scholarship awarded to typical students: one half tuition. (Juniata College 1998-99 Catalog) For the 1998-99 academic year, this works out to be $4375 a semester for full time PAR students, and $375 per credit for students taking less than twelve credits per semester. Beyond that, they may not receive any more financial aid from Juniata, only by the traditional means of loans and through government educational funds and the like. Once enrolled, the PAR student may take any course on campus and participate in any extra-curricular event, including the Eagles Abroad program and cooperative programs such as the Washington Semester and Philadelphia Urban Semester. However, the half-priced tuition does not apply to any semester not spent on Juniata campus.

In general, the female PAR students out number the male PAR students by a ratio of around 2:1. The majority of PAR students choose one of three POE’s: education, social work, and business (ranked in order of popularity). PAR students perform marginally better than typical students as a whole do, producing an average GPA of 3.0518 compared to 2.971.

In recent years, the traditional student population at Juniata has been on the rise once again. Because of this, nearly all advertising for the PAR has been cut off. This is evident when one looks at the enrollment numbers of PAR students for each year. The program began with around twenty students in the late eighties, and swelled to thirty-one in just three years. There was a sharp decline in numbers shortly after, though, and the numbers have now reached into the low teens and beyond, with the number of incoming PAR freshmen for the 1997-98 academic year being twelve.

The first group I interviewed was the professors. I interviewed six different professors who represent various departments on campus: education, sociology/social work, business, English, chemistry, and math. They each answered a series of six questions. There were two different threads in the questions for the professors: the performance of PAR students as compared to typical students and observations on the interactions between PAR students and typical students.

The first question asked was simply an overall impression of PAR students. The response was positive. All of the professors were quick to point out the fact that PAR students are different than typical students in their backgrounds, their interaction in class, or both. Three said that PAR students are more focused on their education than typical students. Three professors pointed out the PAR students’ lack of naiveté, and how that was very helpful in class in that they have more rich life experiences to relate current topics to, and a more realistic world view to match new concepts up against.

The second question asked considered a raw comparison of the performance of PAR students and typical students. Only one professor, the math professor, noted a large discrepancy in performance. In his case, PAR students performed at a level at the top of the class. For the most part, the professors said that the average typical student and the average PAR student are about the same. Or, as one professor said, the performance of PAR students "runs the range," just like the performance of typical students. A few mentioned that the PAR students have more distractions to overcome in their personal lives, with jobs and a family, than typical students do. One professor believed that their performance might be hindered at times because their lack of naïveté can lead to a false sense of confidence or the notion that they are "always right."

The professors were divided in their observations of PAR student participation in class. Two professors said that it ran the same range as their performance, with some PAR students being talkers in class, and some not. Three of the professors said that the PAR students were more vocal in class. They also cited other qualities that they brought to discussion such as a willingness to ask more in depth questions, a refusal to take things at face value, and a willingness to stretch the boundaries of the discussion. One professor explained a process he believes PAR students go through to become assimilated into the classroom setting in which they are timid and unsure at first, and then gain confidence and finally rise to a level comparable to that of typical students or slightly higher.

All of the professors said they believe PAR students put forth a greater effort than typical students. Two professors specifically mentioned that the PAR students probably put more time into their studying, while three guessed that they were more focused on their work while they were doing it. One professor, however, completely disagreed with the last position, saying that he does not assume that they work better or more efficiently, simply harder in whatever way is necessary.

There was a consensus on the observation that there are clear, though not insurmountable, barriers between the two groups of students. There was a common statement that the interaction improved as classes progressed either over time or if the issue was forced, by being placed in a small group together, for example. One professor believes that contempt is present from the typical students toward the PAR students. This may stem from a difference in value systems, the fact that the PAR students are "abnormal" and do not belong in class, and/or operational difficulties in meeting for projects because the PAR students commute. Another professor cited age difference as a possible source of uneasiness. The professor of sociology/social work noted that in his classroom, the PAR students sit around the periphery of the group. He then went on to describe the interaction in the social work program as being very open. The groups were completely integrated and friendships developed out of this. Two factors that lead to this closeness were the fact that there was always more than one PAR student, providing a safety blanket of sorts, and planned activities the group participated in outside of class such as going to AJ’s, a local bar, for karaoke every Thursday.

The response to the final question, regarding observed attitudes from the typical students to PAR students and vice-versa, was quite varied. Two professors said that PAR students view themselves as different, but one claimed that this was never dysfunctional while the other said it prevented communication a lot of the time. Three professors mentioned that the PAR students might look down on the typical students as "just teenagers" and think they waste time and take school for granted. One professor said that the attitudes from PAR students toward typical students vary, and it makes group work difficult. Two professors said that typical students might view PAR students as if they were a different species of human being.

There were fewer PAR students in CWS at the end of the semester than there were at the beginning, however I could not get an answer as to why this happened other than, "They dropped the class." I interviewed the four remaining PAR students currently in CWS. The questions for the PAR students were regarding reasons for leaving and returning to school, responsibilities other than school, and observations of typical students.

The first question was in reference to their reasons for taking time off from school. Two PAR students out of the three with families cited marriage and children as playing some factor in their decision. One PAR student attended Juniata for a semester right out of high school before leaving. Two students simply said that they were not interested in going to school at that time. One was pursuing a track in the music business. One PAR student fought in Vietnam.

Next, they were asked why they returned to school. All of the PAR students said that they wanted career advancement or change. One PAR student is the manager of a local fast food restaurant and does not want to continue to stay in that field. She had taken fifteen sporadic credits at another small college over the past few years before coming here. Two of the PAR students said that they wanted to live comfortably and happily.

All of the PAR students have jobs that they work at in addition to doing their schoolwork. Three of the students, all of whom are married with multiple children, cited "family" as taking a large part of their time. The other student, who is not married and has no children, said that he spent time in theatre, writing, and playing music.

The PAR students all held very different impressions of their typical counterparts. One PAR student said that he felt they were young, "sheltered," and lacked real world experience. One student said that she gets along fine with the typical students, but she is glad that the PAR students have a separate EO. (Extended Orientation, a weekly part of CWS lead by an upperclassmen where the freshmen are given an open forum to comfortably discuss their experiences and difficulties coming to college. EO is typically conducted in the same CWS sections.) She feels that some typical students are just here to party, but not most of them. She would advise them to take time off from school to find out what they really want to do because they may not like their major in ten years. One PAR student said that she was impressed at the maturity and helpfulness of the typical students.

The PAR students seemed to feel that the participation of typical students covered a wide range and could not be summarized in one comment. One said that they were usually right there ready to answer, except for her 9:00 am class in which they were half-asleep. One student said that typical students would speak if called on, but were not too outstanding as far as volunteering for discussion. One PAR student remarked at how much more everyone speaks up in class at Juniata as compared to Penn State.

The PAR student’s perception of the work ethic of typical students was very positive. One student said that while some kids are here to party, most of them hand in work on time. She also said that most of them are pretty committed and probably do not procrastinate as much as her. One PAR student expressed surprise at the lack of procrastination that she has noticed. She expected a lot more here.

Once again, there was a positive response from the PAR students when they were asked how they thought typical students viewed PAR students. Two PAR students said that they look young, so that may help to smooth interaction with the typical students. One student said that the typical students may not understand what the PAR is, or what a PAR student is. One student said that the typical students have a respect for the PAR students but they do not invite the PAR students into their social circles outside of class. One student said that she thinks same sex relationships between PAR and typical students are more common because the typical students see the PAR students as role models. She also said that the more of an effort you put forth, the more relationships you can create, but it is difficult because PAR students commute.

Finally, the PAR students were asked to comment on the interaction between PAR students and typical students. The general feeling was that the interaction between the two groups was good overall, but could improve. One student said that car pooling for a practicum and working in groups was very helpful in building connections with the typical students. One Par student said that she grew up in town so she knows some typical students. She also said that each group seems to have strong ties within it. She would like to have more time with the other PAR students in addition to the one-hour EO class each week.

I then conducted interviews with six current, typical freshmen that have a PAR student in their CWS class. They represent a broad range of POE’s ranging from genetic engineering to social work. The questions they were asked pertain to their current extracurricular activities and their observations on and interactions with PAR students.

All of the typical students interviewed have some sort of extracurricular activities. Three of the students are on sports teams and two have paying jobs. One person participates in a sport and has a job. Five of the students participate in one or more organized physical activity. Two students regularly volunteer their time. None of the typical students interviewed have either a spouse or children.

The overall reaction to PAR students was receptive and positive. One student said she studies with a PAR student and that the PAR student is "more interesting" than typical students. One student said that the PAR students are smarter because they’ve "been in the open" and "had exposure," but they are still regular students. One student said that she felt weird being in a class with someone that much older than her. Two students commented on how they thought it was good that the PAR students have decided to continue their education.

The typical students’ observations on the participation of PAR students in class were varied. Two typical students said that the PAR students participate just as much as the typical students in class. The remaining four said that the PAR students participate much more than the typical students do. Two said that the PAR student is the greatest contributor in class. One typical student said that the PAR students seem really smart when they participate in class. Two students said PAR students probably are not afraid of what others will think, so they speak more.

The typical students had a lot of different opinions on the work ethic of PAR students. Two students said that the PAR students definitely work harder, saying that one PAR student wrote an eight-page paper instead of five and the PAR students have to learn how to use a computer. One typical student said that the PAR students work as hard as typical students if not a little harder. He mentioned that the PAR students probably value their education more than typical students do. Two students thought that the work effort of PAR students was fairly average. One typical student said that a PAR student she knows keeps up with work but he is slower than the rest of the class with writing assignments.

There were three different opinions regarding what the typical students thought the PAR students think about them. One student said he thought the PAR students see themselves as intellectual equals with the typical students. Two of the typical students feel that the PAR students probably view the typical students with a slight condescending attitude because the typical students are teenagers and do not have the life experiences the PAR students have. Two of the other students think that the PAR students just feel a sense of separation from the typical students. They think the PAR students do not feel like part of the student body, largely because they have to commute.

The typical students came up with a wide variety of reasons they thought the PAR students might have taken time off of school. Four students said that the PAR students just did not want to go to college at that time. Two said that they probably wanted to work. One said that it might have been due to financial reasons. Two students specifically said why the PAR students in their respective CWS class did not continue straight into college from high school: to fight in the Vietnam War and to work in the music business. One student said that they might have wanted to try different things first, or they may have been sick of school. One student said it might be due to a desire for marriage and children. One student said that they might have chosen a school that was bad for them and dropped out.

Finally, the typical students were asked why they thought the PAR students returned to school. Four students said it was probably to become more successful or make better money. Three students said the PAR students probably did not like what they were doing and wanted a change. Three students offered possible reasons such as returning for the educational aspect of it, expanding their horizons, and bettering themselves.

There does not seem to be a general lack of understanding between the PAR students and typical students on campus. The typical students listed every reason that was given by the PAR students as to why they did not continue with college immediately after high school and why they eventually returned to school. Some differences arise out of the experiences that PAR students gained during that interim period, but these do not block communication. Rather, as was stated by a few different people, the typical students seem to hold a certain respect for the PAR students along the line of role models. I believe that most typical students can relate to the feelings of indecisiveness and uncertainty the PAR students were confronted with when they decided not to go to college. This is especially true for freshmen, having just experienced the same questions a short time ago and still unsure if they chose correctly.

Although the collective work ethic and participation of the PAR students have been reported to be slightly greater than that of typical students, I do not think that this is always the case on an individual basis. As is the case with the performance of PAR students, work ethic and participation still vary significantly from student to student. Not every typical student is comfortable speaking in a classroom setting, and there is no reason PAR students who were timid during high school should not be timid students now. One of the professors noted just this. It may be true that with maturity and a lack of peers the students might overcome these quirks more easily, but that does not mean that they do not exist. Furthermore, some students are lazier and/or less intelligent than other students are. These too are most likely effected with maturity and experience. I was very surprised to find that so many of the interviewees in all three groups observed this range of abilities in the both the typical and PAR student bodies. While the PAR students’ experience may allow them to function closer to their potentials, there is still a common strata. This is a key observation in realizing the similarities between the two groups rather than dwelling on the differences.

Yet, despite these observations by both sides, the two groups remain separated by their slight differences. These differences are found in levels of experience and maturity, life outside of schoolwork, and the distinction between commuting vs. non-commuting students. Levels of experience can not be changed; nor do they have to. Professors mentioned the interesting points of view and ways of stretching conversations that PAR students bring to conversation in class, and typical students said that they found the PAR students interesting. I do not believe that this is a significant the cause of the distance between the two groups. The last difference was mentioned by professors, typical students, and PAR students alike as a major cause of the partition between the two groups. In addition, commuting certainly inhibits the out of school activities that can be shared by both groups.

Professors noted, on several occasions, that small group work tends to bring the two groups together. Perhaps if more group activities were included in classes, or if the PAR students participated in more school affiliated extracurricular activities, the distance between the two groups could be somewhat shortened. The latter alternative may not be as feasible, however, due to the jobs and family life of most PAR students. Therefore, the best way to improve the relationship between the PAR students and typical students would be more school related group activity involving both groups such as requiring PAR students to attend orientation and increasing the group activity in the curriculums of such classes as CWS.

Bibliography

Basom, Brett. Personal interview. 12 December 1998.

Frazier, Amy. "Back to School." The Daily News July 24, 1998: 9.

Juniata College 1998-99 Catalog.

The Program for Are Residents 1998-99. Juniata College. Huntingdon, PA, 1998.

 List of Attachments

A one page publication (1997) with information about Juniata College that is sent out to prospective PAR students.

The generic response letter that is sent when the Enrollment Office receives notice that an individual is interested in the PAR.

The 1998-99 informational pamphlet on the PAR.

An application for individuals applying to the PAR during the 1998-99 academic year.

The application for half tuition that is filled out by accepted PAR students.

Tourism and the "Time-Out": The World Discovers the Amish of Lancaster County
By Katie Beears
November 30, 1998

Invoke the phrase "the Amish" or even just "Lancaster County," and you will call up a host of images: Jacob, his wife Sarah, barefoot children swarming around the drive, buggies and hex signs, quilts, plows, hair coverings and dark clothing. The stereotypical picture of "Dutch Country" is a beautiful green rolling countryside, teeming with well-kept fields and barns, home to a people with an enviable, beyond-human discipline. As an "English" (non-Amish) local, Lancaster County’s mystique means something vastly different to me. It means that "Visit the The Amish Homestead!" is an obvious crock, that roadside stands and farmers markets are just good places to buy fruit, that buggies are annoying to pass on the road, and that towns names like Intercourse and Blue Ball do not make me giggle. Yet, this does not make me an expert on my neighbors. I can be just as surprised by an Amish cocaine bust as the rest of the nation, just as confused as to how this behavior arose from such a wholesome people. The traditional outsider’s idealized view of the Amish has been called into question: if the likes of these can fall, what hope do we easily-tempted sinners have? As adaptable as the Amish people are, the world around them in Lancaster is steadily encroaching and having increasing influence in their lives. As tourism grows and as pre-membership youth find the outside more and more enticing, the world of Lancaster County’s Amish is forcibly changing.

While two-thirds of Lancaster is farmland and it is the nation’s most productive non-irrigated farm county, that fact is belied by the large manufacturing and service economies and the arrival of 4.5 million visitors a year (Klimuska, "Business" 2; Grunwald 2). Being located in the highly-developed Northeast United States, the county is an easy distance from many sizable cities and offers the supposed respite of the "country" plus the shopping, restaurants, attractions, and accommodations of suburban life. Tourism to Amish Country has been going on since the end of the Great Depression, but became truly organized in 1958 when the Pennsylvania Dutch Visitors Bureau was formed (Kraybill 227; Hostetler, Roots 282). The creation of an entity whose sole purpose is to promote "our PA Dutch heritage" was probably the origins of today’s exploitative system.

The Amish often feel that they are merely the tool by which entrepreneurs make a living. Amish promoters have developed a complex system by which tourists can receive their uplifting experience with minimal annoyance to their subject, claiming that the tours, refurbished farms, and set bus routes through the countryside yield more informed visitors, keeping them from harassing the Amish (Kraybill 228-30). Tourists are "insulated" at the 600-some attractions in the area—only at native stands do tourists get a "backstage" glimpse, during an encounter strictly under Amish control (Hostetler, Society 318; Kraybill 230). However, regardless of what the Bureau’s intentions are, most tourists leave with their stereotypes confirmed: little literature on Amish religious beliefs is available, many are so misled by publicity that they expect to find whole Amish villages, and some lose sight of the fact that this is real life and not a performance (Hostetler, Roots 282, 173). The visitors are actually less blamed for this downfall, for in the words of one Amish woman,

"Personally, I do not feel any resentment against tourists, but these tourist places are what’s working against us…We are opposed to having our souls marketed by having our sacred beliefs and traditions stolen from us and then distributed to tourists, and sometimes having them mocked" (Kraybill 231).

This feeling of betrayal plays a very significant role in the tourism debate.

The Amish are not so strong-willed as to be unaffected by these tourism revolutions—being famous always has psychological implications, both good and bad. The Amish people have been persecuted in the past for their way of life, but now tourism has brought them self-respect, and those same unchanging qualities are admired instead of mocked (Kraybill 231, 227). However, tourists represent leisure and other negative values, and so the Amish must work to keep emotional distance from them—a difficult act when the more you hide, the more attractive you become (Kraybill 232; Hostetler, Society 316-17). This constant pursuing often angers some Amish. One was unhappy that he had to resort to "No Tourist" signs in his shop, and that the barrage of passing, waving motorists was so frequent that he had to become unfriendly and ignore them (Hostetler, Society 317-18). Cameras are another touchy issue. If asked, a church member must decline from a photograph, but rarely is the question asked, which is viewed as a great disrespect (Hostetler, Society 319). A further source of resentment is urban and suburban sprawl. The whole of Lancaster County was recently named to the World Monuments Fund list of 100 Most Endangered Historic Sites, in the company of such giants as Pompeii and the Hagia Sophia mosque (Grunwald 1). Mourning the losses, an Amish businessman said, "We can’t all farm anymore because there’s not enough land, and there’s a real sadness about that" (Grunwald 2).

In general, the Amish are displeased at the amount of attention they receive, for some accuse them of choosing their somber lifestyle merely for the attention (Hostetler, Roots 275). Also, no other Amish settlement attracts near this level of tourism, and the Lancaster community is occasionally held up as an example not to be followed, as a liberal branch of the church (Klimuska, "Business" 2). This is worsened by the knowledge that the Amish are becoming partially dependent on tourism, 30 percent being employed in tourist-directed enterprises (Stoltzfus 2). In fact, there exists quite a symbiotic relationship: while Amish feel like animals in a zoo, in part the firmly cemented expectations of the tourists helps to "force" them to stay with their values, and it also yields them bargaining power with the state, employed through threats that they can move elsewhere (Kraybill 233). So, while it is uninformed to label tourism as a corrupting and utterly vile influence, it is also foolish to believe the rosy-tinted, pre-packaged Amish dream—for better or for worse, the Amish still exist, and the outside world will continue to find them fascinating.

Speaking of fascination, the most recently newsworthy aspect of the Amish is the controversial portrayal their youth have received in the media. The indictment in June 1998 of Abner Stoltzfus and Abner King Stoltzfus on federal drug charges for alleged cocaine distribution attracted nationwide news coverage within the day. It became a subject of widespread humor, but also of widespread questioning: How could this happen? While the Amish community was also shocked, the public would probably have been less dumbfounded if the Amish life patterns of young adulthood, courting, and youth groups had been properly explained.

The Amish church spreads across the United States and Canada in 240 settlements, of which Lancaster is the oldest and second largest (Klimuska, "Business" 2). It is sub-divided into around 120 districts, each of about 30 families who hold common worship services in each others’ homes (Devlin 3). However, once an Amish child turns age 16, he/she may choose to loosen ties with that district. In the Amish community, sixteen is the start of the formal social life, referred to as the "running-around period" or rumspringa in Pennsylvania Dutch (Klimuska, "Necessity" 2). Young people join social groups, or buddy groups, and are free to associate with others outside their parents’ district, choosing from the twenty-some groups available for the 2000-2300 youth in Lancaster County (Klimuska, "Necessity" 2). These groups exist to help move children into independent adulthood, but also to facilitate the meeting of spouses, who must be from within the faith (Hostetler, Society 145).

The Amish church survives when the children of its members join in their adulthood (an estimated 95% do), hence marriage and family growth are extremely important (Devlin 3). Traditionally, Sunday evening hymn sings, attended by young adults only, are the best occasion for courtship (Devlin 2). Held at the site of that morning’s worship service, and consisting of only the fast songs and breaks for conversation, the sings last into the night (Hostetler, Society 146). A young man also gets to visit his steady girl at her house every other Saturday night, arriving after the family is abed, and staying until the early morning hours (Hostetler, Society 148). Courtship is not discussed in the family or community—no girl is teased about having a beau and engagements are kept secret until one to four weeks before the wedding (Hostetler, Society 146, 192). With marriage the rumspringa ends and the youth becomes an adult church member.

The connection between adulthood, church membership, and being wedded is an important one. Being Anabaptists, the Amish require adult baptism to join the church (Klimuska, "Necessity" 2). Therefore, a boy remains a boy from age 16 until his wedding/baptism, and afterwards he is called a man (Stoltzfus 1). Rumspringa is meant as a chance to experience the outside world, so to enter baptism as a free choice—to quote an Amish source, "The original tradition of running-around is not ‘free-time’…The tradition is being in control" (Stoltzfus 2; Klimuska, "Necessity" 2). However, occupational change in the Amish world has made that control more tenuous. Up into the 1960s farm work consumed all time, but today there is not enough work to keep the boys on the farm, and over 50% of the workforce works in more "secular" jobs outside of agriculture (Stoltzfus 2, Devlin 2). Amish expert Donald Kraybill calls this movement into business "the most significant change the Amish community has experienced since it migrated to the New World," saying that it is creating social classes based on wealth and occupation (Klimuska, "Business" 1).

The change also means that during rumspringa Amish youth are now commonly working construction jobs that pay $12-15 an hour and require less time than farm work. A few of the youth groups, including two named the Antiques and the Pilgrims, have used this freedom to become significantly worldly, complete with new cars, visits to the movies, boom-boxes, and trendy clothing (Devlin 2). On weekends after the day’s tourist traffic clears, the youths will gather at a common meeting-place to flirt, chatter, admire the boys’ vehicles, and discover where the evening’s "action" is—in short, they are hanging out, like adolescents do everywhere. Many will then attend dances referred to as hoe-downs or hops late into the night, where drinking can be common (Hostetler, Society 356). While hoe-downs are forbidden, an Amish elder writes that about 25% of the youth attend them anyway, usually flocking to a farm where the parents are away (Stoltzfus 2).

Indeed, the role of parents is one outsiders often wonder about: why do they allow their children to act so? Like parents anywhere, the Amish face problems as their children grow into adulthood, but their social system makes things even more difficult. During rumspringa youths are supposed to be more independent, and since they have not yet been baptized into the beliefs of the church, they are not subject to its authority (Devlin 3). Since only an estimated 10% engage in these wild and occasionally illegal behaviors and since it is believed that most of the rowdiness originates with the boys, parents can try to discourage their daughters from joining "fast" groups, thus drawing the boys away (Klimuska, "Business" 2). However, especially in large settlements, adult social control is less strong than peer pressure, and since youth groups transcend district lines, they are under no one’s jurisdiction (Hostetler, Society 355). In Amish culture, parents are to respect the privacy of their children, so while parents may worry deeply, to an extent their children have social sanction to do as they please.

This paints an unnecessarily bleak outlook for the Amish, however. Such rebellion has a history of occurring. In the mid-1950s a book published an account, complete with pictures, of an Amish teen hoe-down featuring no chaperones, lots of beer, cigarettes, dancing, and loud music (Klimuska, "Wild" 1). An Amish youth was quoted in 1951, after receiving censure for racing buggies in public for money (in essence gambling), saying "we’ll cope with the consequences later" (Hostetler, Roots 115). Since the Amish population is thriving, obviously many youth are drawn back to their roots, and join the church.

This issue of drugs and other improper behavior has been greatly magnified by the media. The incongruity of good, moral Amish boys working beside and sharing cocaine with the Pagans motorcycle group drew much greater media attention, increasing the normal popularity of Lancaster County news stories (Klimuska, "Frenzy" 2). According to expert Donald Kraybill, the media actually coined the phrase "time-out" to refer to the rumspringa during this event—it has never been used in the Amish community (Klimuska, "Frenzy" 2). Inside sources say that church leaders are worried about division in the community if actions are taken on the youth problem (Klimuska, "Necessity" 2). One Amish person said in response to the rebellion issue,

"The biggest misconception in the media is that this is an accepted thing. It is not accepted by anyone. There are a lot of very, very concerned Amish parents and youths. It is not the choice of the parents their children do these things" (Klimuska, "Necessity" 2).

It can also be said, in support of the running around, that,

"We can’t have an Amish church without young folks. We can’t have a church without the young folks getting married. We can’t have families if the young folks don’t get to running around" (Klimuska, "Necessity" 2).

In the end, rumspringa is a rite of passage totally ingrained in the very tradition-bound Amish social system, one that allows youth to actually feel that this way of life is one that they have chosen, and not one landed in through inertia or coercion.

So, while one is old and traditional, the other recent and revolutionary, and both possibly dangerous sources of change, neither the rumspringa nor tourism is at all likely to disappear. The Amish are an adaptive, hardy, and close-knit people, who have undoubtedly faced outside temptations and negative publicity before. They have survived and even prospered through 300 years of the turmoil of life in America, and that experience and the discipline gained from it probably puts them almost at an advantage for the years to come.

Devlin, Ron. "Drug Presence Has Worried Amish for Years." Morning Call 28 June 1998: A1.

Grunwald, Michael. "Sprawl Intrudes on Paradise." Boston Globe 17 May 1998: A1.

Hostetler, John A, ed. Amish Roots. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1989.

Hostetler, John A. Amish Society. 4^th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1989.

Klimuska, Ed. "Church Fathers: Boy-Meets-Girl Rite is Necessity." Lancaster New Era 8 Aug. 1998: A1+.

Klimuska, Ed. "What Went Wrong? Amish Expert Cites New 'Business Class'." Lancaster New Era 13 June 1998: A1+.

Klimuska, Ed. "Wild Behavior Isn't New." Lancaster New Era 8 Aug. 1998: A4.

Klimuska, Ed. "Worldwide Media Gripped by 'Feeding Frenzy'." Lancaster New Era 13 June 1998: A1+.

Kraybill, Donald B. The Riddle of Amish Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1989.

Stoltzfus, Samuel S. "The Drug Problem: How it Came to the Amish Community." Lancaster New Era 6 June 1998: A1.

The Tununermuit of Baffin Island: Culture Change and The Environment
By Sarah Hamsher
November 1998

Within this paper I will discuss how the Tununermuit of Baffin Island relate to their environment throughout colonialization by Canada. I will also include a section about the toxins that are now invading this once pristine landscape and the response from the Inuit to these contaminants.

Baffin Island is an island in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Within this region there are five main phases or seasons. These include: open summer, the ice of fall, the land-fast ice and floe edge of winter, the spring melting, and the moving pack ice of early summer. Tides on the coast of Baffin Island range somewhere between twenty-five and thirty-eight feet high (Kemp 463-464). As you can see this is a very harsh environment for humans to subsist. The earliest people that lived on Baffin Island traveled in a nomadic fashion throughout the island. Some of these people even traveled as far north as 500 miles from the North Pole. Along with the fluctuating seasons come extreme weather conditions such as sudden storms, strong winds, blowing snow, and the treacherous shifting ice. All of these conditions prove that the Inuit must understand many things about the land they live on to have the ability to survive (Matthiasson 25-26).

In the 1700s whaling activity began in the seas around Baffin Island. These activities were concentrated in the Davis Strait but by the 1850 most of the Inuit had contact with whalers. This was the first contact period that would predict further contact between the Europeans and the Inuit (Kemp 466). The Inuit had a "watch and wait" mentality about the whalers. Many Inuit were cautious of interacting with the Europeans. Then on June 22, 1869, Canada declared the Inuit and the Northwest Territories as their own. This had little effect on the Inuit until much later. Due to their isolation, the Tununermuit were without the social structure and infrastructure of government (Matthiasson 27). Eventually the Inuit actively traded with the American and Scottish whaling ships. Many Inuit traded whale skins, walrus skins, and sealskins for iron tools, tobacco, and cloth. The Inuit became dependent on these items (ibid.: 29). The crews of the whaling ships were often able to mix with the Inuit women, thus increasing genetic diversity within the area (ibid.: 33). Although the Inuit were not instantly hooked on tobacco they did develop addictions leading to tuberculosis and lung cancer. The first medical service available to the Inuit was that of the whaling ships (ibid.: 29).

Another aspect of the whaling period is the Christian church on the ships. Some Inuit worked on the whaling ships and attended church services and Christmas parties. This was their first contact with Christianity, but it would not be their last (ibid.: 33).

The whaling ships also traded guns for skins with the Inuit. Guns needed ammunition and this was another form of dependence on European items. Guns also had more negative effects. With the increased technology came increased hunting efficiency. The Inuit normally only could feed two or three dogs and now they found the meat to feed six or more dogs. The amount of dogs a family owned became a status symbol among the Inuit. The increased number of dogs also led to a greater amount of distance to cover. The more distance created more exploitation of the land’s resources (Matthiasson 32-33; Kemp 469).

After the 1930s trade became scarce until the 1950s. During this time many Inuit families were hit with very hard times. The supplies that the Inuit came to depend upon became scarce and many suffered from untreated epidemics and chronic poor health. The interaction between the Canadian government and the Inuit began to change in the late fifties and sixties (Kemp 474). Infrastructure that built this dependence began in 1892 (Matthiasson 35).

In 1892, a Scottish barrel maker spread rumors about placer gold that could be found on Baffin Island. Placer gold is gold found in alluvial deposits in the Arctic. Because alluvial deposits are not concentrated with gold much of the landscape would be destroyed by these mining operations. As the rumors spread the Canadian government sent scouts to look for the gold. With this exploration came the first real establishment on Baffin Island in the thousands of years it was inhabited, the Arctic Gold Exploration Company (ibid.: 35). Later the name was changed from the Arctic Gold Exploration Company to the Hudson Bay Company. Eventually the Inuit became dependent on fuel and ammunition from the Hudson Bay Company and began to settle around it. The people were less nomadic and hunted only a radius around the settlement. Around the settlement more people hunted less resource because their territories were much smaller and closer together (ibid.: 41-42). In some ecosystems hunting the top predator (seal/caribou) would make the lower trophic level populations explode (Begon, Harper, and Townsend 369-401). (An example in Pennsylvania is the deer, which have no top predator because Americans slaughtered all of the mountain lions. The mountain lions used to keep the deer population under control.) The Hudson Bay Company also brought wage employment. A small number of Inuit would work for wages and then return to the camp lifestyle (Matthiasson 42). The Hudson Bay Company brought technology such as motor boats instead of the traditional kayak. The Inuit now slept on HBC (Hudson Bay Company) blankets instead of animal skins and traded their animal intestine windows for windows made of plastic (ibid.: 54).

A few years after 1910 a man by the name of Janes took up settlement in Baffin Island. As the story goes Janes took an Inuit wife without permission from the husband. Janes did not have any respect for the Inuit but he did often trade with them. When Janes wanted to leave the settlement he gave away all of his furs because it would be expensive to take them home with him. Janes was then denied coming aboard the ship that would have taken him home. He was very upset that the Inuit would not return the skins he gave to them. The Inuit saw them as a gift and were upset that Janes expected to get them back. In the next year Janes became a very angry man and threatened to kill his Inuit wife’s husband’s father’s dogs. To the father this was a threat against his subsistence and therefore his life. The husband killed Janes because of the threat. Because Janes had a wife at home, the case would be investigated. This investigation led to permanent police in the Baffin Island area (ibid.: 42-50).

In the early 1920s a trader suggested that the Inuit of Baffin Island needed a Christian influence. He persuaded a Roman Catholic Church to build a church on Baffin Island. In 1929 the first church was built on Baffin Island. Many Inuit began to attend the church service because their previous religion was synchronic with Christian religion. At this same time the Anglican Church took hold in the Baffin Island area and many Inuit became affiliates (ibid.: 50-51).

In the 1960s the traditional-contact period still existed. The people were moving between summer and winter camps and living off the land. The Inuit used guns and gasoline, but they were still living the way their ancestors did with only minimal changes (ibid.: 54). Sexual division of labor was present. Men hunted for short periods at a time and women cooked, made clothing, and gossiped. This lifestyle was not seen as oppressive in the Inuit culture. Women did just as much work as men if not more. The people traded and some had wage employment but those with wage employment were seen as weak (ibid.: 72-78).

In the 1970s the Inuit lifestyle was changed considerably. Many of the children went to school. The children lived in hostels and went to European school because the Inuit families were afraid they would lose their welfare checks if they didn’t send their children (ibid.: 141-142). Over Christmas the Inuit camps were empty because everyone went to church, mostly the Anglican Church, on Christmas (ibid.: 148-150). Slowly the Inuit saw advantages to living in the settlement. The people had developed a need to settle to be with their children. In 1967 a housing project, set up by the Canadian government, took over and encouraged the Inuit to settle in houses (Kemp 474). Although there were squabbles among the buerocracy, these evened out (Matthiasson 142-143). The church was not for Inuit settlement because they thought it would encourage alcoholism and sin. The police didn’t agree with settlement because they believed the Inuit would cause more trouble if they were sedentary (ibid.: 54-55). Some policemen had used traditional ways of punishing the Inuit like embarrassing them in front of their elders. Eventually the head of police had changed and more conservative methods of punishment were enforced (ibid.: 106-107). The people that had lived in the settlement of Pond Inlet were the first leaders when other Inuit began to move into town. This group of sedentary Inuit had the advantage of knowing how a town worked and took leadership even if they were not as respected as the strong hunters were. As more and more people moved into the settlement the people began to realize their leaders were rarely people that had lived off of the land. The respected ones, or the strong hunters, eventually replaced the first sedentary Inuit as leaders (ibid.: 118-129).

Today these people are faced with problems beyond direct colonialism. The people of Broughton Island, a group of 450 people, are plagued with contamination from Polychlorinated Biphenyls or PCBs (Colborn, Dumanoski, and Myers 30). PCBs are found in American and European items such as hydraulic fluids, coolant-insulation fluids in transformers, and plasticizers in paints, none of which are used by the Inuit (Walker et al 10-11). These chemicals are very persistent in the environment and may travel around the world many times until they are magnified in the Canadian Arctic. PCBs often rest in the Canadian Arctic where the Inuit of Broughton Island still eat seal and polar bears (Colborn, Dumanoski, and Myers 107). The environment is separated by ecologists into different trophic levels starting with producers (plants) and leading up to top predators (bears). Biomagnification is the accumulation of chemicals in organisms in increasingly higher concentrations at successive trophic levels. (An example is the PCBs in the Great Lakes: 0.0025ppm of PCBs in algae, 0.123ppm in zooplankton, 1.04ppm in Rainbow Smelt, 4.83ppm in Lake Trout, 124ppm in Herring Gull eggs) (Kaufman and Franz 108-109). Therefore, these PCBs are highly biomagnified by the time they reach the Canadian Arctic traveling on wind and in water currents. Many Inuit villages have children being contaminated by breast milk. Because there is no word in Inuktitut for contamination it makes it all the harder for the Canadian government to convince the mothers of Inuit children to not breast-feed their children. The Inuit began to believe that the government was telling them lies about synthetic chemicals to keep them from killing seal and polar bears. The Broughton Island Inuit have chosen to ignore the government and live as they have for thousands of years. These people have higher concentration of PCBs than do people living in industrial cities. The people of Baffin Island have shunned others of the community calling them "PCB people" and believing them to be liars. A fish dealer even pulled out of Baffin Island because of the high contamination, cutting off more of the Inuit’s chance for cash income, which they rely upon (Colborn, Dumanoski, and Myers 107-109).

One mother was so afraid of contamination that she fed her child Coffee-mate and water. Luckily the child was hospitalized in time, but what is to come of these people? If this message of horrible contamination is not brought to their attention in time these people may disappear after thousands of years of existence and adaptations to the Arctic. There is no safe, uncontaminated place (ibid.: 108-109). Our pollution is becoming a form of hidden genocide.

One way to save this population is for someone to be trained in anthropology and environmental toxicology. These two fields could work together to help explain to these people what is happening in their environment. If we have any global morality it should be our duty to attempt to remedy this problem created by modern industrialization. Americans and Europeans have created these problems for the Inuit, a people that have no word for contamination and we have a moral obligation to tell them what has happened to their seal and their polar bears that is giving their children birth defects.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neandertals: To Speak or Not to Speak?
By Jessica R. Probst
Intro to Archaeology and Human Prehistory (SO254)
12/7/98

For any group of peoples to possess culture, it is assumed that some form of basic communication system, most commonly language is required. Without communication the passing on of complex traditions for tool making or religious connotations would be nearly impossible (Haviland, 216). The cultural practices of a society would never grow and develop if there were no means by which to communicate. In the earliest hominines, communication was most often displayed in gestured forms as seen in modern day chimpanzees (Ralph Holloway in Lewin, 167). As the brain began to get larger, more modern forms of tools and communication systems began to develop and continue to do so today (Haviland, 210-211). But, this path of biological and cultural development took a few surprising turns along the way. One such twist was the behavioral and cultural entities of the Neandertal peoples. With a cranial capacity surpassing our own and a tool kit like that of an historical Australian Aborigine, it would be assumed that Neandertal man indeed possessed a fairly modern form of culture and language (Lewin, 167; Haviland, 209,215; Leaky & Lewin, 272).

For many years though, the ideas of the Neandertals possessing the abilities to speak and utilize culture was absurd. One of the original discoveries of the Neandertal, The Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints in Neander Valley, caused archeologists to paint a picture of a Neandertal "ape-man" instead of a "man-ape" (Haviland, 208). An image of a savage, cave dwelling, primitive-like being was suggested. This certainly dismissed the idea of a modern language capacity and cultural lifestyle (Fagan, 88,). But, reexamination of the remains, classified Neandertals as a "less finished" version of anatomically modern peoples (Haviland, 208). Now that it was established that Neandertal man was in fact, almost modern, the investigation of his speech capabilities began.

The components of speech essential to a developed language are based in biological structures (Fagan, 87). However, implications of speech can be seen through cultural developments as well (Lewin, 164). The body of empirical evidence that supports these notions is very indecisive and no definitive conclusions have been made. Therefore, the supporting evidence has been broken down into two basic subgroups, that of biological fossil evidence, and that of cultural artifacts (ibid.: 162).

Biological remains give researchers the platform in which to base their assumptions on. Human linguistic capacities are built on the anatomy of the larynx, the dexterity of the tongue and lips, and the elaboration and enlargement of the brain (Foley, 45). Since anatomy serves as the backbone of linguistic practices, most structural remains of the skull give researchers the greatest amount of evidence. The brain plays a large role in the ability to speak. First, the size of the brain is essential for the ability to communicate verbally, the larger the brain the more likely the existence of verbal communications and abstract thought (Brace, 150). Many studies show that language development tracked the increase in brain size, and moreover, language was a major cause not consequence of human brain evolution. Also according to this research, language was positively selected for in nature (Lewin, 167). This then would give reason to believe that speech was present in Neandertals.

The structure of the brain is important when looking at basic verbal functioning. A slight alteration in structure could inhibit speech capabilities. According to several reconstructions of Neandertal skulls, the positioning of the bend or arch at the base of the skull, called the basicranium is equivalent to that of modern humans. The degree of arching of the basicranium reveals the degree of language capability (Lewin, 170). But, conversely, further basicranial research by Phillip Lieberman of the Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, revealed that the "classic" Neanderals’ speech was very limited (Lieberman in Gibbons, 33). Lieberman believed the base of this skull was no more flexed than that of Homo erectus 1.5 million years earlier. A flat basicranium for example, is associated with the combination of a high larynx and a tongue shape that inhibits modern speech because it leaves too little room in the mouth to pronounce the necessary sounds (ibid.: 33). This could suggest that Neandertals’ language was no more developed than it had been 1.5 million years earlier (Lieberman in Leaky & Lewin, 271). It was concluded then that Neandertal were deficient and primitive with respect to their linguistic and cognitive abilities (Diamond, 54). Varying fossil remains cause archeologists to, on the one hand dispute and on the other confirm contrasting ideas involving the study of the basicranium. First, the Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints was a badly deformed skeleton in many ways; it is all together possible that the degree of flexion in the basicranium was more pronounced than it appears, causing some archeologists to believe Neandertals were speech compatible beings (Leaky & Lewin, 271). Also, research by Jeffery Laitman revealed that some of the Neandertals were not as structurally modern as archaic homosapiens, but others do fall within the range of what would be considered modern (ibid.: 272).

Certain areas of the brain are specifically designated to speech and language. Each area is specified for a certain task. The areas present can be seen in the Neandertals from impressions on the inside of the fossilized skull (Lewin, 167). The Broca’s area (crucial for the integration of the muscular activity needed for articulate speech) was, according to reconstructions of the Old Man of La Chapelle aux-Saints, poorly developed in the Neandertal brain (Trinkaus & Shipman, 354). Also, according to further brain research, the Neandertal brain was not adapted well enough to control articulate maneuvers that are associated with rapid human speech ("Neandertal Language",1996). Therefor, this possibly could attest to poor or non-existent speech capabilities (Trinkaus & Shipman, 354).

Though speech elements of the brain are essential, the existence of anatomically modern structures gives important insight into the vocal realm of the Neandertal people. With reconstructions and replications, a new idea has developed concerning Neandertal speech. It is not a question of could they speak, but to what capacity. According to an archeological linguistics study, Neandertals had a tongue and larynx badly placed for producing the range of complex sounds required in modern human speech (Crenlin in Gibbons, 33). It showed that Neandertals lacked the abilities to produce such vowel sounds as i, u, and a, and velar consonants such as k, and g (Liebermain & Crenlin, (1971) in "Neandertal language", 1996). These are considered essentials in modern unimpaired speech (Gibbons, 33). A quote by Lieberman suggests "at minimum their speech communications would have been nasalized and more susceptible to perceptual errors. They probably communicated vocally at very slow rates and were unable to comprehend complex sentences (Lieberman in Leaky & Lewin, 271).

This nasalized speech was, according to Laitman, a result of the Neandertals unusual cranial anatomy (Lewin, 171). It was revealed that Neandertals would need a vocal tract with a curved tongue body and sufficient space between the base of the skull and the spinal column to generate a full range of unasalized, human speech sounds, which many archeologists believe did not exist in the Neandertals (Fagan, 88). If this were true, communication between Neandertals would possibly have been limited and very primitive. Laitman believed that Neandertals had actually regressed back to one-half ape grade. He placed the Neandertal at the same level as Homo erectus, implying again, that speech was very primitive (Leaky & Lewin, 272). Leaky on the other hand disagrees and says "I find it hard to conceive of such a regression in a function that seems to have been selected for so very strongly in human history (ibid.: 271-272). Laitman and Lieberman’s vocal views have been challenged with the recent discovery of a hyoid bone in Kabara Cave in the Middle East. This hyoid bone or throat bone, helped in the reconstruction of the Neandertal vocal tract ("Linguistic Capability",1998) and is also crucial for articulate speech (Trinkaus & Shipman, 391). These Mousterian (name of tool kit of the Neandertals) Neandertals that once dwelled in the Kabara Caves of the Middle East, left a hyoid bone and indirectly gave researchers a special opportunity to prove whether Neandertals were or were not talking (Brown, 310; Haviland, 211). Because biological remains both support and discount the ideas of speech in the Neandertal man, and exact reconstruction is virtually impossible due to the lack of physical evidence a definitive conclusion at this point in time would be impossible. Also, the fact that soft tissue from the vocal track did not survive causes us to make, assumptions and interpretations based on what physical evidence of biological remains do exist.

Fossil evidence is important as we have already seen, but it does not convey much cultural insight as to what the Neandertal people’s lives were like. Were Neandertals a rough, nomadic, hunter-gatherer group with insufficient language or were they a more stable hunter-gatherer society with a somewhat developed culture and a sufficient means of communication? This question can only be partially answered by cultural artifacts. Historical (pre-Neandertal) fossils reveal that homo habalis had the first stone tools, the first utilization of animal resources on a scale comparable to humans, and perhaps the first foundations of human social life, cooperation, sharing, and language (Foley, 46). Being Neandertals ancestors, Homo habalis would have most certainly passed these traits on to their more modern offspring along the line of evolution. Much of this inherited culture that the Neandertals utilized can be seen through tools and ancient burial sights. The tool kit of the Neandertals was even a bit more advanced and consisted of basic tools for various functions. The existence of tools for different tasks implies a possible language system based on behavioral needs (ABC News, 1998). Also, these early cave dwellers had to refer to their tools with some kind of conceptual template or labels (Brown, 267). As more and more complex tools were created, it is possible that a rule-system must have been utilized to some extent to dictate tool-making practices (Lewin, 164).

Instinctual creations such as tools displayed a development that was quite essential for survival. But, the idea of a marked burial site existing in Neandertal culture possibly suggests a development based partially on culture and abstract thought not just survival skills. The evidence of concern for death was a remarkable discovery (Haviland, 215; Lewin, 163). Fossil remains of an old man buried with flowers and medicinal plants surrounding his body were discovered. According to the analysis of the remains, this "old man of Shanidar" was said to be a shaman of great ceremonial importance (Leaky & Lewin, 270). Burial sights like this cause archeologists to assume that culture was a very serious part of the Neandertals existence. Also, this discovery led researchers to believe that Neandertals did indeed possess a structured culture and were able to think beyond the here and now (Lewin, 162; Leaky & Lewin, 273). This advancement in culture would only indicate a language system essential for heightened social and cultural contexts (ibid.: 163). Overall, the cultural remains support the concept of some form of fairly modern speech. Without vocal communication skills, many researchers believe the existence of cultural evidence would be fairly slim and underdeveloped (Gibbons, 34). Another theory supporting speech through cultural evidence in the Neandertals suggests that the appearance of language actually coincided with the beginning of the Neandertal stage. Throughout the Middle Pleistocene, brain size increased at a slow, steady rate. Additional informational storage capacity of the brain was clearly beneficial. Beneficial in the fact that with increased brain size, language and information can be processed, transferred, and comparisons and considerations can be made between all members of a group (Brace, 150). With this newfound ability, cultural aspects can develop. Language is the basis for development, and fossil and artifactual remains found within Neandertals sights give evidence for a cultural society (Lewin, 165).

If language was indeed the "principal for building human culture", then the idea of a group of higher intelligence organisms with inferior verbal communication could inadvertently lead the demise of the species (Lewin, 161; Fagan, 88). This could be the reason for the sudden disappearance of the Neandertal peoples. Greater evidence found in the Near East supported the idea of modern humans and Neandertals living side by side, one with speech and one virtually without. The possibility of a superior language and a superior human may have caused the actual extinction of the Neandertals. This great leap forward by Cro-Magnum man possibly "drove out" the Neandertals. Superior language development of Cro-Magnum man gave them an evolutionary advantage over the Neandertals (Diamond, 54). Lieberman concluded that the language deficiencies in Neandertals played a major role in their disappearance (Leaky & Lewin, 271). But it is possible that the Neandertals didn’t die out at all, but interbreed with the Cro-Magnum man. Research by Ashly Montagu argued that some faint Neandertal characteristics can be seen today in Middle Eastern and European populations (Montagu, 1969). This finding would suggest that the interbreeding hypothesis is at least partially correct. This hypothesis seems very unlikely if Neandertals lacked the ability to rapidly communicate, but however if they did contain the abilities to converse with more modern Cro-Magnum, then it is all together possible that interbreeding did occur (Gibbons, 33).

In the end, this controversy over to speak or not to speak underscores a central problem: How complicated is it to reconstruct cultural and biological behaviors from fossil remains (ibid.: 34). Can assumptions be made from pieces of fossilized Neandertal skulls that speech was non-existent, or can we assume that a cultural artifact was created because speech helped define it? These questions will continue to flourish until there are technological advances in interpreting these ancient behavioral patterns. Many researchers have changed their stance on the issue of speech throughout the years. Laitman’s earlier works suggested an almost non-existent speech in the Neandertals but recently, he was quoted as saying "I don’t think they could speak exactly the same as we can today", and he added, "that doesn’t mean that they were linguistically impaired" (ABC News, 1998). This quote shows how very difficult it is to pinpoint an exact time and peoples for the origin of speech. However by way of evolution, as human development continues, language ultimately furnishes culture and has done so for thousands, maybe millions of years. A quote from Roger Lewin concludes, "language is the principal tool for building human culture, and in theory throughout evolution, there has been a potential infinity for languages (pg. 161)."

References

Brace, C.L. (1991). The Stages of Human Evolution. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Brown, M.H. (1990). The Search for Eve: Have Scientists found the Mother of us all? New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Diamond, J. (1992). The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Fagan, B.M. (1990). Journey from Eden: The Peopling of Our World. London: Thames & Hudson Inc.

Foley, R. (1987). Another Unique Species: Patterns in Human Evolutionary Ecology. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Gibbons, A. (1992). Neandertal Language Debate: Tongues Wag Anew. Paleoanthropology, 256, 33-34.

Haviland, W.A. (1997). Human Evolution and Prehistory. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Leaky, R., and Lewin, R. (1992). Origins Reconsidered: In search of what makes us human. New York: Doubleplay Bell Publishing Group, Inc.

Lewin, R. (1993). The Origin of Modern Humans. New York: Scientific American Library.

Montagu, M.F.A. (1969). Man: His First Two Million Years. New York: Columbia University Press.

Trinkaus, E. & Shipman, P. (1993). The Neandertals: Changing the Image of Mankind. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Website: http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/speech980427.html

When were the First Words? ABC NEWS. (1998)

Website: file:///C/Temp/neandertal.htm. Neandertal Language. (1996).

The Fossil Record: A Better Interpretation
By Kelly Place
November 1998

Gender stereotypes and societal misconceptions have played a large role in past interpretations of human history. Frances Dahlberg, editor of Woman the Gatherer, stated in her preface that she has never discovered a book that covered "the portion of the anthropological universe where women and evolution intersect" (Dahlberg ix). She claimed that the closet attempt to acknowledge women as a major contributor to human evolution was Man the Hunter, edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore (ibid.).

This anthology, like many other anthropological/archaeological accounts, bases its discussion of women and their roles in society on gender stereotypes. The most popular perception of early humans and their various gender roles is summarized in the phrase "man the hunter" (Dahlberg 75). Men provided the meat for their society, a major item in the hominid diet. Men invented weapons for hunting. Men played the roles of provider and protector of women and children. Having these views of men automatically places women in a reproductive, passive role (ibid.).

The perception of men and women as having these roles described above, stems from gender stereotypes and gender differences that are still applied today. Themes of male aggression, dominance and strength have provided a foundation for analyzing human behavior (Dahlberg 76). Women could not be hunters because they lacked physical strength and also had to devote their time and attention to breast-feeding and tending their children (ibid.: 2). These stereotypes have shaped anthropology and archaeology for many years.

Assuming this is what occurred in hunting societies, early anthropologists (the majority of which were male) spent their time with male informants. Using biased sources, women were inaccurately represented and recognized. For example, male archaeologists had not catalogued or described many of the grinding stone tools that women used. This misrepresentation of women in the fossil record was discovered during the woman’s movement in the late 1960s (Dahlberg, 3).

In 1975, Ruby Rohrlich-Leavitt, Barbara Sykes and Elizabeth Weatherford produced a study presenting the problem of biased information. They had both male and female ethnographers explore the position and nature of Australian Aboriginal women. The male ethnographers represented the women as "profane, economically unimportant and excluded from rituals" (Moore 1). The female ethnographers described the women’s role in society as being a "central role." They also described the importance of various women’s rituals, and the respect they were given by the men of the society (ibid.).

This discrepancy among the results of the study alarmed most anthropologists and they began to collect new information, conduct new studies based on gender bias, and ask questions regarding existing data. After looking at the fossil record, past data and new data, it has been proven that woman have played a wide variety of roles in society (Moore 1).

In the 1920s, Czech archaeologists proposed that human survival during the Upper Paleolithic was primarily based on food from large game. This bothered Olga Soffer, an archaeologist at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. After studying evidence from Dolni Vestonice and a neighboring site of Pavlov, Czech Republic, she proposed that human survival in these areas during the Upper Paleolithic had little to do with men hunting large game, as previously determined (Pringle 62). Before the fifth century BC, elephants were not killed for survival purposes. These animals were much too large and too difficult to manage (ibid.: 64). Soffer asked the question, "If Upper Paleolithic families were not [hunting] mammoth…what were they hunting, and how?" (ibid.: 65).

In 1991, Soffer was analyzing hundreds of clay fragments that were recovered from the Pavlov site. Under a magnifying glass, she discovered that the fragments held impressions of parallel lines on their surfaces. Because all of these pieces were found among wood charcoal, radiocarbon dating methods were possible. These fragments were dated between 27,000 and 25,000 years ago (Pringle 65).

Soffer showed the clay fragments to her colleague Jim Adovasio, an archaeologist at Mercyhurst College in PA and an expert on ancient fiber technology. Adovasio recognized the parallel impressions as a pattern of fiber weaving. These fiber-weaving fossils were the oldest ever found (by nearly 7,000 years) (ibid.: 66).

Adovasio took some of the clay samples back to Mercyhurst College and had his colleague David Hyland analyze them. Hyland discovered that four of the fragments had impressions of cordage bearing knots. This technique, Hyland noted, was used to produce nets (Pringle 66). Captivated by this discovery, Soffer expanded the study of these clay fragments. She concluded that these nets were far too fragile to hunt any animal larger than a deer. However, they could have been used to capture hares. Hares and foxes account for forty-six percent of animals that were recovered from the fossil record at Pavlov (ibid.).

Soffer thought about the role of the net in hunting practices and realized that using a net to capture animals is actually a very safe method of hunting. It also is a method that does not require great physical strength. She concluded that women probably played a large role in this hunting practice. First of all, women could manufacture the nets while they watched the children. Secondly, women could use the net to hunt because it would not have placed the women in a dangerous situation (Pringle 67).

Olga Soffer is not alone in questioning past discoveries. Linda Owen, an American archaeologist who is an expert of analyzing stone tools, noticed that many of the Upper Paleolithic tools found in Europe had the characteristics of pounding tools that would be used for harvesting and processing plants. Owen asked, "Were women and children gathering and storing wild plant foods?" (Pringle 67).

German archaeologists ignored Owen, saying that they had already discovered that ninety percent of the human diet consisted of meat in the Upper Paleolithic. Owen did not believe this and began to concentrate on nutritional studies. She found that a human diet primarily based on meat alone would lead to death. To burn protein, the body must increase its metabolism by ten percent, which decreases the liver’s ability to absorb oxygen. Therefore, humans who ingest more than half of their calories from meat, will be poisoned by protein (ibid.).

Having discovered this, Owen needed to prove that plant life was abundant in this area. She produced a list of plants included in the diets of people currently living in cold-climate regions of North America and Europe. Owen compared this list with a list composed by botanists, which consisted of species identified from Ice Age sediment recovered from southern Germany. Approximately seventy plants were common to both lists (Pringle 67).

Plant collectors were typically women. Gathering plants and berries was a job allocated to women because they did not have to leave the home as often. From these findings, Owen suggested "that it was women, not men," of the Upper Paleolithic who brought home most of the calories (ibid.: 68). She estimated that if "Ice Age females collected plants, bird eggs, shellfish, and edible insects; and if they hunted or trapped small game and participated in the hunting of large game," then women most likely contributed seventy percent of the diet to the society (ibid.).

The conclusions that Olga Soffer and Linda Owen drew from the fossil record demonstrate that women played a key role in supplying food for the family. It is an unfair assumption to give credit to just the men in the society (Pringle 62-68). Using the fossil record and re-analyzing past evidence, women have also been found to play other roles previously coined as male roles. Recently, women have also been found to play the warrior role (Holmes).

There is an ancient Greek myth that discusses the Amazons, a group of warrior women said to come from "North Africa, Asia Minor, or the steppes of southern Russia" (Davis-Kimball 45). The Amazons were described by Hellanicus, writer of the fifth century BC, as "golden-shielded, silver-axed females, male-loving and male-infant-killing" (ibid.). Now these myths may be supported by fact.

Burial mounds found in the steppes of central Asia were discovered to contain the graves of warrior women. Most of the graves are dated from 600 to 200 BC, of the Sauromatian and Sarmatian cultures (Holmes). The graves contain a number of domestic objects such as spindles, beads, pottery and jewelry (Davis-Kimball 46). Out of the forty graves excavated by Davis-Kimball and her Russian colleagues near Pokrovka, seven looked more like the graves of warriors. These graves contained weapons such as arrowheads, short daggers, and long swords (ibid.: 47).

In the 1950s, Russian archaeologists dug up examples of similar graves on the steppes of southern Ukraine. They also noticed that many of the female graves contained swords, daggers, arrowheads and spears (Davis-Kimball 45). However, they did not associate any significance with their findings. This is a sign that early archaeologists failed to admit early women could exercise such power to be considered a warrior (Holmes).

These Russian archaeologists suggested that the weapons were placed in the female graves for ritual purposes. Davis-Kimball disagreed. From analyzing the bones of the grave, it is obvious the occupant of the grave possessed the weapons. The one grave contained a 13- or 14-year-old girl with bowed legs, suggesting she led a life on horseback (Davis-Kimball 47). Also, the weapons found in the graves had smaller hand grips than men’s weapons (Holmes).

Philip Kohl, an archaeologist from Wellesley College, MA, agreed with Davis-Kimball. He argued that when weapons are found in male graves, archaeologists do not suggest the weapons were placed in the grave for "ritual purposes," but instead the archaeologists assume that the man was a warrior. The Russians should have interpreted the evidence the same way for the female graves (Holmes).

Since the primary material archaeologists work with is concrete objects from the fossil record, what these objects "say" about human history is based on interpretation (Haaland 374). These interpretations can be influenced by perceptions of society, such as differences among gender. How much one lets these differences influence his or her interpretation is important. Because of gender stereotypes, archaeologists in the past have allowed differences among males and females to direct their analysis in certain directions. However, this is changing.

In her book, The Chalice and the Blade, Riane Eisler comments on human perception. She argues that regardless of what people find as sound evidence, they still continue to base their interpretations on stereotypes. People believe innate differences among men and women cause one of the sexes to be superior over the other. "Our culture is built on the ideas of hierarchy and ranking," Eisler writes, "the kind of if-it-isn’t-this-it-has-to-be-that, dichotomized, either/or thinking" (Eisler 27). She offers the idea that societies can exist where differences are not "necessarily equated with inferiority or superiority" (ibid.: xvii).

Eisler proposes the Cultural Transformation theory, which states that human culture is basically comprised of two models of society: 1) the dominator model, more recognizable as patriarchy or matriarchy, and 2) the partnership model which is based on "linking rather than ranking" (ibid.). This theory also suggests that human societies used to be based on partnership, but has developed into domination due to cultural influence (ibid.).

It is necessary for today’s anthropologists, particularly archaeologists, to shift their concentration from the first model to the second when interpreting evidence regarding past and present human societies. Today’s world is moving into new directions. Men and women are changing their relationships with each other and are living co-dependently. Relationships are becoming more equally balanced. With this shift in dependency comes a variety of implications. Institutions will become more internationally based, encompassing all human societies. Human consciousness will be enhanced and uniformity among societies will develop. Technological advances will aid in this uniformity, and economic changes will undoubtedly develop. For example, an already emerging "mixed economy" combines characteristics of capitalism with that of communism (Eisler 201).

If these changes do occur, it is important to study and learn from the past to avoid repetition of disaster. The fossil record provides humans today with strong factual proof of ancient behavior. Therefore, it is imperative to interpret the data with non-bias and an open mind. If early societies were based on partnership, as Eisler suggests, many lessons can be learned from these societies to guide humans into a productive future (ibid.: xvii).

Bibliography

Dahlberg, Frances, ed. Woman the Gatherer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

Davis-Kimball, Jeannine. "Warrior Women of the Eurasian Steppes: New Evidence
Suggests that Tales of Amazon Warriors May be More than Mere Legend."

Archaeology. 50.1 (Jan/Feb 1997) : 44-48.

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade: Our history, Our Future. New York:
Harper & Row, 1987.

Haaland, Randi. "Emergence of Sedentism: New Ways of Living, New Ways of
Symbolizing." Antiquity. 71.272 (June 1997) : 374-385.

Holmes, Bob. "Women Warriors Come Back from the Grave." New Scientist. 153.2068  (8 Feb 1997) : 16.

Moore, Henrietta L. Feminism and Anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

Pringle, Heather. "New Women of the Ice Age." Discover. 19.4 (Apr 1998) : 62-69.

Han Mortuary Rites
by Sarah Oakman
Introduction to Archaeology
November 15, 1998

Death is universal. Death is one of the only guaranteed conditions to be a part of every culture around the world. It evokes a variety of reactions and emotions that are not random or meaningless. These rituals help one to confront death while celebrating life in general and the life of the individual. Death calls upon the most important of societal and cultural rituals to evaluate life experiences. People’s responses to death open doorways for the study of human behavior (Metcalfe 2).

Mortuary Rites challenge Theoretical Paradigms. Death invokes inescapable issues, which are usually avoided on a daily basis. The relation of death to emotions is strong and binding. The powerful emotions felt by survivors is used by some to explain the rituals that follow. Renato Rosaldo studied the Ilongot of the Philippines. This group of people would be termed as headhunters in western society. He believes emotions shape human actions, and individuals rely on rage to overcome their grief (Metcalfe 4-5).

In the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BCE), the Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi unified China and named this conquered land after himself. He set up an internal communication system and started the construction of the Great Wall of China as a means of defense. In many ways, it was his government that set up the Han Governmental structure. The Han Dynastic Rulers came to power in 206 BCE and retained their rule until 221 CE. This was a time society flourished politically, economically, and culturally in China. Confucianism was the state religion, which set up a code of morals and rituals and regulated the relationships of man (Earenfight: Oakman 5-6).

One of the most important aspects of Chinese religion is the belief that, while the body may expire, the soul lives on. Therefore, a person never really dies, but moves on into a different realm. In many ways this is a universal of Chinese people throughout the society regardless of their religion (Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens 41). After death, a man will still need food, drink, and other daily goods to lead a comfortable afterlife. The family must provide everything that he would possibly need during his afterlife. Ancestor worship became the major function of the Chinese family (Ch’ü 30).

Besides these daily goods, the family also furnished the deceased with materials and maps to guide the person through his journey to the ancestral realm. They felt the soul (hun) must be provided for to safely see it through this path. Some Chinese believed in a second element of the p’o (the second element of the soul), which can return to "haunt" those who have forgotten him. The Chinese believed that if the soul was displeased with its afterlife, it would then return to seek vengeance upon those who did not provide for it (Loewe 1982 118).

Such objects as minute houses, farmyards, granaries, well-heads, and boats were found. In more elaborate tombs, ritual objects for religious practices may be found, and sometimes a person will furnish the deceased with servants and animals to care for them in the afterlife (Ibid.). In early Chinese practices prior to the Ch'in and Han dynasties, live animals and humans were sacrificed for the grave, but many began to condemn such practices, and wealthier individuals brought only replicas of people and animals (Earenfight: Oakman 4). While some of these things may seem ordinary, only the best of these objects were taken to the grave. This was to ensure a safe and more comfortable life after death than before. The family wants to ensure the souls contentment so it will not wreak havoc upon the survivors (Loewe 1982 118).

Towards the end of the Han Dynastic rule, China experienced much turmoil. There were several different warlords vying for control of the empire. At the same time, the people were in a conflict of their own. A resurgence of Taoism was sweeping the state while Buddhism, which had been introduced from the South, began root itself in the crumbling empire (Earenfight: Oakman 7). Han philosophers, statesmen, and historians began criticizing the large, ornate burials of the wealthy in favor of a simpler route in life as well as death (Loewe 1982 114).

The Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi’s tomb is located in Xi’an, China. This is a magnificent structure with a vast store or archaeological artifacts. The tomb itself is 1000 meters wide and 2000 meters long. It contains an entire army consisting of approximately 7000 terra-cotta soldiers, which were individually cast. Also, there are terra-cotta horses pulling wagons, which at some point had harnesses attached to them. Qin Shi Huangdi’s tomb took about 20 years to build which, incidentally, is longer than his rule (Earenfight: Oakman 4-5).

The tomb is a miniature replica of his palace. The four corners of the tomb are in line with the four cardinal points, east, west, north, and south. To the north is the old city and to the south is the natural barrier of the mountains. In the west lies the old Shang and Zhou burial grounds and to the east is the rest of the Chinese Empire. He wanted his tomb to the center of the universe (Earenfight: Oakman 5).

In a suburb located in the east of the province Changsha, there are the three tombs at Ma-wang-tui. In tomb two and three, Li Cang, who belonged to the house of Dai and his son were buried in 193 BCE and 168 BCE, respectively. In the first tomb, the wife of Li Cang, the Countess of Dai, was buried around 186 BCE. It is the first of these three tombs that was the best preserved. In her tomb, over 1000 objects were found still in almost perfect condition, including her body. This burial is an early example of the techniques the Chinese used for mummification (Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens 41).

The structure of the tomb rectangular, stepped at the top, aligned to the four cardinal points. From the lowest of the four steps, the walls slant inward to the top of the burial chamber. The body itself is buried within four coffins, one inside the other. A layer of charcoal then surrounds the coffins, and the charcoal has a layer of white clay around it. This is designed to insulate the contents from the outside air. The entire structure is 20 meters from the peak of the mound to the lowest level of the pit (Loewe 1979 23).

The outermost coffin is painted entirely in black. The second coffin has a cloudy sky pattern with mythological creatures painted on it in gold and scarlet on black. The third coffin has a scarlet background decorated with a variety of animals such as dragons, deer, and tigers painted in white or gold and a scarlet bird. The innermost coffin is decorated in satin stitch embroidery and applied fabric. On top of this fourth coffin is a painted, silk funerary banner. The banner depicts the Countess being guided through her journey to her final resting-place in the afterlife (Loewe 1979 23).

There is very little information on tombs of the middle and lower classes. Obviously, the less wealth a family has, the less ornate and smaller the burial structure will be. Still, the burials will contain the best objects the family can afford to put into the tomb. These tombs are not going to be as well preserved because such practices are very costly, which means these artifacts will be permeated by the environment around them causing damage and decay. The burials of slaves and prisoners show they are meaningless and unworthy in the eyes of society. Just south of Lo-Yang is an ancient burial ground used for convicts. There were approximately 500 people buried here in a grid-like system. The only documentation for them is their name, domicile, type of punishment, and date of death, if they even received this recognition. The lesser members of society did not have such ornate burials like their wealthier counterparts (Loewe 1982 118).

Many Chinese tombs went unnoticed for years, unlike the Egyptian Pyramids, because they are mounds of earth, which resemble the appearance of a hill. Most of the archaeological evidence today has come from tombs. Tombs can provide the earliest evidence for cultural activity (Metcalfe 27). This shows that early man was capable of abstract thoughts and thinking and comprehending beyond the present. This exemplifies the idea that they believed the body did not just expire and that was the end. Someone was obviously thinking about what was beyond death, and if there could be life after one dies. The Chinese believed in life after death in a separate world, an ancestral realm. This is evident through their procedures to impart permanence on the body in order to preserve it for the deceased’s life after death.

Mortuary structures can reveal much about the culture of the people who designed them. They can tell one if the person was wealthy or poor and their situation in society. They can tell us what type of resources the people of the civilization accessed to and how they used these resources. If there are differences amongst the types of tombs, they can reveal the degree of social stratification in the society and indicate who would be revered and who would not receive such an honor. Also, the structures can lead to theories about how developed the civilization was and how it would compare to other cultures existing at the same time. If the structures were complex, they could lead to a person believing the society to be as complex as the structure, or if the tombs were very basic, then that person could believe the society’s ideals did not attach much importance to such matters.

Tombs are also excellent resources for information about a society’s religious beliefs. A tomb will exemplify what is important and what is not important according to that group, or individuals within that group. This, in turn, will reflect what is important within a culture. The theme of the everlasting soul and person spending eternity in the afterlife is replayed over and over again in the tombs. The Chinese put this idea foremost in thought and action. For example, a very wealthy person’s body would sometimes be fitted with a jade suit. Jade, to the Chinese, imparted permanence because of its tough exterior because of its ability to withstand destruction and decay. The jade would be cut into squares then sewn together with gold (for the emperor), silver (for princes and feudal lords), or copper (for princesses) thread. The suit was fitted around the body, shaping to its curves in the hopes that it would preserve the body simply because of its ability to withstand change. Of course, this method did not work because the suit was not airtight (Fontein 100). The Countess of Tai’s tomb contains many paintings and artifacts portraying this idea of immortality of the soul. This is significant because it traces Han modes of thought through the types of themes or objects portrayed in their burial practices (Loewe 1979 18). It puts into practice the ideas of the philosophers being expressed at the time.

These large tombs can tell one much about a society. Only the wealthy people were permitted to use some materials, and the emperor was privileged even more than this. The jade suits for example, can give us an understanding of the structure of the stratification in the upper class by identifying who was allowed to use the different types of thread. The middle and lower classes were not allowed to use such precious materials as jade, so this was not an option for them. The wealthy received very large, ornate burials, while anyone under this class did not. As a person moved down the social scale, the less important they became, which meant the less money they were able to spend on the dead. All of these are factors in the type of objects they took to the grave.

These large burial structures also can tell one about the type of society as well. Obviously, to have such large construction going on for so many years, there must be a central authority controlling all of this. There must be some sort of hierarchy for a person to have powers over others to build such large domains for them. The emperor Qin employed artisans, laborers, and artists for 20 years during the construction of his tomb (Earenfight; Oakman 4).

Archaeology is intricately related to the study of past cultures. One must find artifacts left behind by the people in order to form opinions about the people’s behavior. Without such evidence, one can only speculate upon the practices, political systems, and economic stability of the society. Without this evidence, one’s credibility could be questioned because he will not have proof to support his theories. While, everything is really speculation in archaeology and the conclusions drawn from the study of remains, more precise and credible conclusions can be made if the proper research is done.

Works Cited

Ch'ü, T'ung-tsu. Han Social Structure. Seattle; University of Washington Press, 1972.

Fontein, Jan and Tung Wu. Unearthing Chinas Past. Boston; Museum of Fine Arts, 1973.

Loewe, Michael. Chinese Ideas of Life and Death; Faith, Myth, and Reason in the Han Period. London; George Allen & Unwin, 1982.

Loewe, Michael. Ways to Paradise; The Chinese Quest for Immortality. London; George Allen & Unwin, 1979.

Metcalf, Peter and Richard Huntington. Celebrations of Death; The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens, Michéle. The Han Dynasty. New York; Rizzoli, 1982.

Oakman, Sarah. Chinese Artists Dealing with the Buddhist’s Influence. Unpublished.

This paper’s focus is "intelligence and racism" and the belief that racial superiority in intelligence exists will be addressed. A question that those unfamiliar with the true concept of race often ask is whether differences exist in the levels of intelligence between the different human races. With the beginning of human evolution came human diversity, which eventually led to the different races, and this opened the door to prejudices based on the evolutionary differences. There are many theories that hypothesize about the origins of the different human races, but the unknown origin of race has not prevented humans from developing prejudices based upon them. "Racism" is the term for these prejudices. Webster’s Dictionary defines racism as, " the notion that one’s own ethnic stock is superior," or prejudice based on this theory. Despite the many excuses for racism, the most prominent and accepted (even by members of the scientific community) reason is the supposed intelligence difference between the races. In this writer’s opinion, these differences do not exist, but efforts have been made to prove both sides of the argument.

Racism is the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior, and this belief has existed throughout history. Ever since the beginning of diversity of the human race, we can imagine that racism existed. When the level of human evolution was still in the early stages, the possibility that racism existed is low because interaction outside one’s "family" was infrequent. However, as populations began to diversify, interact and become more intelligent the tendency for prejudices based upon superficial characteristics became more likely. Different cultures have exercised such extreme measures as genocide to prove their supremacy as in the case of Nazi Germany with the "Aryan Race" and the present situation in Bosnia and in Rwanda. More often than these drastic measures in the name of racism discrimination is the result of peoples’ prejudice. However nowadays racism occurs on less drastic levels or at least the public knows less about accounts of racism.

The first "expert" on the subject of race consulted in this paper is Nazi Eugenist, Hans F. K. Gunther. During his studies of race during the 1920’s, he discovered that five races exist both pure and intermixed in Europe. He came to this conclusion by examining physical characteristics of people in the same area and making correlations. Gunther stated his theory about race in his book, Racial Elements of European History when he said "a race shows itself in a human group which is marked off from every other human group through its own proper combination of bodily and mental characteristics and in turn produces only its like." This theory was used to prove that the race, which the Nazis supposedly belonged to, was superior and warranted the genocide which followed. Even if this theory was not applied for evil purposes, there are other flaws inherent in it.

The first argument in favor of racial equality comes from Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich draws from a paper by E. O. Wilson and W. L. Brown a criticism of the subspecies concept, which states that "variation in different characteristics is generally discordant." That means that instead of varying together, the characteristics change randomly in unique and unusual patterns unrelated to other characteristics. This is true in humans and evidence exists in the distribution of height and skin color and the lack of similarities between them.

Because our species is so variable and discordant, there are no "natural units" that allow one to divide the species into 4 or 40 different evolutionary entities or races. The discordant quality of the human species discredits our pre-conceived notions of race based on skin color and therefore invalidates any statement that argues that any one race is more intelligent than another is. Anthropologist Franz Boas in his book, Anthropology and Modern Life further supports this theory. He denies the importance of the manner in which similar traits in diverse races originated, but implies that those traits prove the independence of race and culture because their distribution is not racially linear.

Another author, Loehlin, expands on the subject of race by stating that; "’race’ is a category more inclusive than the "individual" and less inclusive than the species. The definition given by Loehlin is amazingly similar to the definition of a subspecies, and he actually compares races to subspecies occasionally throughout his book. After noting the racial definition given by Ehrlich this similarity does not exist because of the discordant nature of humans. In the opinion of this writer, this fallacy in the definition of race invalidates the argument of the book in regards to racial differences in intelligence.

Despite this argument, studies have attempted to prove that the racial differences in intelligence exist. The most recent supporters of this theory are psychologist Richard Herrnstein and social scientist Charles Murray. In their book, The Bell Curve, they identified a 15 point difference in IQ between African and European Americans, with the later scoring higher yet not as high as Asian Americans score. They also found that the differences are mostly determined by genetic factors controlling intelligence and are therefore unchangeable.

This book by Herrnstein and Murry intends to provoke racial unrest in the reader through its claims. When the authors address the issue of immigration to the United States of America, they attempt to impose their racist opinions. The lack of intelligence of foreign immigrants becomes a point of contention for the authors of which they refer to the effects of poor English in Latino immigrants. The authors also discredit the image of America as the melting pot in their critique of the immigrant intelligence.

The Bell Curve argues that intelligence is determined genetically, and that nature, not nurture or racism made Black Americans performs poorly in school and on the job. The book has since its publication become the "Bible" for anti-affirmative action forces arguing that since black people were genetically predetermined to fail in life, extra training or education for disadvantaged populations would be useless. Only after three years have scientist finally been able to refute the books unsound evidence and racist conclusions.

The supposed 15-point difference in IQ suggested by The Bell Curve seems less likely when the work of anthropologist Franz Boas is considered. In 1928, Boas was aware that no mental test at that time could provide insight into racial differences that could not be attributed to the effects of social inexperience. Improvements have been made since the IQ tests of 1928, but the effects of environment are still an impermissible factor.

Another fallacy in the argument of The Bell Curve is its lack of attention towards the effects of environment upon intelligence. In his book, Race Bomb, Ehrlich refers to a study of adopted children. In the study the IQs of the adopted children were compared to the IQs of the biological parents to test the same hypothesis suggested by Herrnstein and Murry. When the children were tested at age thirteen, they were weakly correlated with the education level of the biological mother, but not at all correlated with the adopted mother. (Correlation coefficients measure the linear relationship between variables; values run from zero to one, one being the best correlation.) This result alone might lead one to believe that the assumptions of The Bell Curve are correct. However, "in plain English, all of the variation observed in IQ in the populations tested could be due to environmental factors only." This is not to say that genes have nothing to do with intelligence.

In their argument, Herrnstein and Murry used theories and arguments from Charles Spearman and Arthur Jensen to prove their hypothesis that the white, European American population is intellectually superior to the African American or Black race. Spearman had a hypothesis that incorporated the underlying difference in mental ability between blacks and whites, g. Jensen then published evidence that the disadvantaged environment of some blacks depressed their test scores using Spearman’s g factor as evidence. Jensen also claimed that there was a near total likelihood that IQ variation was not due to environmental factors.

Their book is quite controversial and has brought about many arguments against it. One argument against The Bell Curve, made by Dr. Joseph Graves, an evolutionary biologist, is that there is no way to isolate the population tested to ensure a controlled environment. He compared Herrnstein and Murry’s experiment to the study of genetic differences of fruit flies in a laboratory, where the conditions are strictly controlled. He identified such environmental aspects that effect intellectual development as poverty and inequities in education. This invalidates the tests that they administered and considered controlled.

Another problem inherent in their book is that they relied on mostly old arguments and presented very little new and compelling data to prove their point. The studies they refer are subject to the criticism as those of their predecessors. The correlation coefficients from their studies, which obviously according to the authors prove their point, were actually quite low. Their coefficients were no greater than 0.16, which exposes the weakness of the relationships that they used.

Another fallacy in the book and the argument has to do with genetics. A quote from Ehlrich relates this mistake in full detail. "Somehow the proof that Mother Nature has assigned more genes for smartness to those with white skins than to those with dark skins has escaped the attention of most quantitative geneticists. How come? The answer is simple – quantitative geneticists are burdened with knowledge of genetics." It is interesting that two men of the social sciences were able to tackle a subject of such biological influence without consulting the experts on the subject.

This final point is in reference to my original argument that the human species, Homo sapiens, which is unable to be divided into races technically because of the discordant nature of its characteristics. This writer would like to call to mind the old saying, "don’t judge a book by its cover." Books vary in size, shape, color, kind of binding, design, type style, publisher, language, author, price, and many other features of content. Similar to the characteristics of Homo sapiens, these characteristics vary discordantly, and make qualitative classification difficult.

However, books are not classified in any qualitative order, but instead they are organized according to the author or the title, which becomes the arbitrary scheme used to deal with the variation. As a book of any color or outer design may contain interesting or important information, every "race" of human beings is equally able when it comes to intelligence because of the similar discordant nature. Despite the non-uniform characteristics of the two, it is necessary to adopt some arbitrary scheme to deal with the variation and for humans this scheme is race.

Return to Main Juniata College Page
Academics | People and Campus Life | Alumni | Campus TourAthletics
Admissions | Library | This Week at JC | Search Juniata