Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Writing 2010
07/09/2008
Through history, anthropological discovery has been achieved through intensive data
gathering techniques that have defined the way we look at humanity. However risky, the
anthropologist blends into unknown societies, being exposed to different cultures and possible
violence while attempting to understand how those cultures work, and how the individuals live.
In retrospect, thanks to these efforts, we may learn how our ancestors lived and evolved. Many
of these studies include the scientific analysis of mummies, DNA in relation to patrilineal and
matrilineal descendant lines; the analysis of ancient teeth growth patterns, occlusal evidence,
general bone structure measurements, etc. In this report however, I will focus on two
technologies which, in my opinion, are amongst the greatest contributors to the science: CT
In many cases, especially when anthropology saw its birth, the understanding of cultures
was based on the anthropologists’ own perspective. Analyzing a culture based on one’s own idea
of behavior was a biased way to understand other humans and their cultural environment. This
practice, known as ethnocentrism, which many would characterize as racism, dominated the
science until early in the 20th century. However, thanks to the contributions of new professors,
the understanding we had changed. Anthropologists learned to study cultures from the inside out,
not otherwise.
Technical advances in Anthropology have been slow coming; the belief that
anthropology is a hands-on science in a way reduced the need, or even denied the
acknowledgement, of new technology. However, many scientists advocated the use of new ways
of gathering information that would not destroy the very history anthropology was responsible
for safe keeping. Could the science be considered a cultural preservationist if it destroyed the
As new technologies that provided a greater amount of detail and data emerged, the vast
responsibility in regards to handling the new data provided by this technology will be analyzed
in this article, as well as the fact that the data so readily available is not only interpreted by
experts, but also the inexperienced, who tend to beautify information to fit a certain goal.
humanity, but that it also analyzes the data unequivocally, arriving to a logical conclusion. While
some will argue that the findings aided by this data may be ethnocentric, I will demonstrate that
such judgments are made by those who do not understand the data provided, and refuse to follow
CT Scanning Technology
Through history, ancient burial sites have been vandalized all over world. Whether it be
for gold, pottery or simply something old to sell, the grave robbers are responsible for the
destruction of many mummies from many civilizations. In a sense, these invaluable parts of
history and humanity suffered a second form of vandalism; that of the scientist. Though in the
name of knowledge, many mummies have been destroyed by those attempting to save them.
Caballero Prieto |3
A study by two professors, Archeologist Kate Robson Brown and Anthropologist Helen
Wood, of two Egyptian mummies skulls (identified only as A and B), demonstrates the uses of
CT scanning technology: “in the century since Petrie (1898) first demonstrated the use of
radiological technology in the study of Egyptian mummies, diagnostic radiology has made an
invaluable contribution to anthropology” (199). Also known as CT scanning, this technology has
helped anthropologists to, in a sense, to see without eyes. Scientists had to physically open an
Egyptian sarcophagus, unwrap the mummy and analyze the remains; now, with CT scanning
technology the body can be studied in better detail than looking at it with the naked eye. In their
study, Brown and Wood explained that “Using a CT HiSpeed Advantage Scanner (G.E. Medical,
USA) in situ [on location] at Addenbrooke’s Teaching Hospital, Cambridge, UK, CT images
were generated of each mummy in the transverse, sagittal and parasagittal planes. At the time of
going to press, the cost of this treatment was approximately UK£30.00” (199). Not only was it
The professors explained that “a scan thickness of 5.0 mm resulted in a high level of
resolution of all tissue types.” (200) yielding high definition images of the mummies that could
be used to create 3D modeling of the skulls. Extensive data was gathered in regards to skull size
and thickness, jaw size, wear and tear of the teeth, etc. These measurements were then used for
metrical analysis (also known as Anthropometrics or, as the science explained later, Geometric
Morphometrics) by the scientists to identify, for example, the individual’s sex: “Mummy B does
not exhibit a large frontal sinus and appears gracile in terms of muscle attachments, size of
mastoid processes and gonial angles; this may indicate female sex” (202). In a separate case
study Nikki Eklektos,1 B.Sc. (Hons); Manisha R. Dayal,1 M.Sc.; and Paul R. Manger,1 Ph.D.
also found this technology applicable “to determine the extent of preservation of the mummified
brain” (499) of an man’s skull found fossilized in Africa.
The technology however, does pose problems; while scanning an item may be relatively
cheap, obtaining the machine itself is certainly not. The expertise needed to use a CT scan is very
specific, and asking an anthropologist to put aside his work to learn to use it seems unreasonable.
Therefore the science may depend on outside sources like the hospital mentioned above to obtain
CT scans, which, done in large scales, for multiple individuals, may put a strain on
scans with existing data sets is a valuable way to increase our understanding of existing data, and
of generating new information precluded from other types of study” (Brown, Wood 203).
This technology can also spark racial issues. When CT scanning was used to reconstruct
the great Pharaoh Tutankhamen’s face in 2005, controversy regarding the fact that the Pharaoh
seemed to be shown with white skin and non-African characteristics became headline news. The
data was ‘interpreted’ by three separate teams of forensic anthropologists from Egypt, France
and America, in partnership with National Geographic. While the data was solid and interpreted
by people representative of very different locations individual groups still found the data unjust
and misrepresentative. Especially when backed up by people like Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-
1986). A Senegalese Anthropologist, Diop contends in his article “African nations and culture:
From ancient black Egypt to the problems of black Africa today.” that the conception of modern
further asserts that his reasons are made fact by the idea that life for the Ancient Egyptians was
oriented south, towards sub-Saharan Africa (62, 70). These ideas are further supported by F.L.
Williams, R.L. Belcher, and G.J. Armelagos. In their 2005 publication “Forensic
Variation” they state that “Pressure from local law enforcement officials who insist on ‘knowing’
the social race of unknowns may prompt some forensic anthropologists to designate racial
affinity (provided that the sex of the individual can be determined), producing classifications that
some have called ‘bureaucratic races’.” The fact that Nubia (located in the ancient Nile) was
Egypt’s closest trader and rival and that they were of “Negroid” characteristics seems to
emphasize that an Egyptian Pharaoh would have never been of “Caucasoid” traits.
General protestors, moved in part by a media outcry, gathered at the opening of the King
Tutankhamen’s exhibit because they did not understand the data presented nor the evidence used
for the famous Pharaoh’s bust. Most scholars agree that the way we look at history may change
as new evidence is presented aided by new technologies. How can someone refute that three
teams from three different parts of the world arrived to the same conclusion? The truth is that
new technologies give us clear data and help us establish new trends that will guide us to an
understanding of who we were and where we came from. Accepting this data is critical to
accepting ourselves.
Zahi Hawass, Egyptian archeologist and Egyptologist, head of Cairo’s Supreme Council
of Antiquities and arguably the best known Egyptologist today stated that "Tutankhamun was not
black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it"
and that "Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa”
(as quoted in the article “Tutankhamun was not black: Egypt antiquities chief”). Are we to
believe those with an agenda or are we to stand on our own feet? Data specification based on CT
scanning cannot lie. If we are to progress towards a future based in understanding we must first
try to understand how this new technology works; especially when that technology helps us
understand ourselves.
Geometric Morphometrics
the University of Vienna explains to us how this new science has contributed greatly to the
anthropological field. Geometric Morphometrics (Morphometrics from now on) uses data
gathered from measurements of distance and angle from a human bone, a piece of clothing, or
anything that may be used to identify a civilization. By creating certain axes based on the
gathered data “their numerical values reflect the unique location and origination of each
specimen with respect to those axes” (Slice 262-263). The results are used to compare
similarities between items of clothing from Africa and Europe, or bone size between species,
helping determine relationships or even common ancestors. One may compare Morphometrics to
Anthropometrics as mentioned above, yet the sciences are different in that Anthropometrics
focuses on the measurements of the human body, while Morphometrics applies to anything with
Some of the problems that Morphometrics poses however are objectivity and
measurement correctiveness. Slice exposes: “Of primary importance is that the analysis of a
limited set of linear distances, ratios, or angles frequently fails to capture the complete spatial
arrangement of the anatomical points (landmarks) on which the measurements are based.” (262)
In other words, lines cannot conform to round corners. The fact that specimens, especially on
humans, may change in size relative to age is also a problem. However methods are being
studied to solve such issues like standardizing measurements and giving reference points that
processing data is needed in the anthropological field. As Slice asserts: “The stability and, by
now, familiarity of the above process in anthropological research should not be taken as an
indication that the methodology is fixed or that its full potential has been realized. Active
research is underway to extend the basic paradigm to accommodate unique aspects of specific
data sets and research questions, and some of these sophisticated methodologies though
One may wonder how Morphometric data can be manipulated. Even in well known
magazines and news reports like National Geographic or ABC news the data can be stretched to
match a specific writer’s point of view. In an online article for the ABC news site the reporter,
regards to arrow head data findings in North America, probably gathered in part, thanks to
Morphometrics: “Nobody knows exactly when this happened, but probably about 2,000 years
ago a clever hunter somewhere in North America figured out that if he had a better way to throw
a small spear he would improve his chances of eating dinner that night” (1). The romantic view
tangles the reader into a lack of factual data. While no one knows when it happened, it is known
that the arrow had its beginnings in Africa, over 18,000 years ago. While the author does not
contradict that arrow technology was initiated in Africa he definitely does not corroborate it;
giving the reader the vague idea that bow and arrow technology started “somewhere in North
America” (1). As Dye states later on, there is “no doubt [our wandering hunter] soon learned he
could use his new weapon to vanquish his technologically challenged enemies, who were still in
the spear-and-dart phase, and quite possible the world’s first arms race began” (1). The authors
comments not only portray inaccurate information, but mislead the audience into thinking that
the “first arms race” was initiated in this very country “2000 years ago” when in reality if it’s
even appropriate to name it so, the first “arms race” would have been initiated somewhere in the
Middle East no less than 18.000 years earlier, where bow and arrow where first developed. The
gross misuse of Geometric Morphological data is evident in this publication; intentional or not.
To the interested reader I would suggest Robert L. Bettinger and Jelmer Eerkens’ 11-page
Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin.” While technology advancements make data
available to the masses one must remain cautious of what is read and where it’s coming from.
Conclusion
gained insight in procedures and understanding. Regrettably, as late as the 1970’s, the
technological advances in the field still consisted of interns examining bones, professors
spending years in the field, and hard data gathering with paper and pencil; simply put, hands on
science. Even though the anthropologist is still, by definition, a hands-on scientist, the
technological advances of the last three decades have made progressive changes in how this
“outdated” science is viewed worldwide. Through technology, the science has acquired more
accurate methods for data gathering and analysis; revealing truths that may very well re-write
The merge with new technologies and further angles of research is a necessity in a world
where everything seems to change in the blink of an eye. Francesca Bray, a professor of Social
Anthropology suggests that the science should not only use new technological methods, but also
Caballero Prieto |9
add a branch of its studies based on technology as a culture in itself. Bray proposes “close
cultures of the technical communities that produce technologies and to the specific material
With such advancements in the science and the speed at which this information is shared
in the world today, anthropologists like Rosa Elena Gaspar the Alba warns that “new
technologies should not be an instrument of control and oppression, but one used for liberation
and education in both developed and underdeveloped societies. Thus social sciences, particularly
anthropology and archeology, utilizing cutting edge technology, increase not restrict the
for what data is used for, and how information is portrayed in this modern world is the key to
understanding the scientist’s role in this issue. Gaspar the Alba denounces that “in the case of
TV channels and mass media producers are manipulating the information that has been
scientifically generated in order to make the story more attractive to the general public” (3).
Scientists have to make a stand to stop this misuse of data; a stand to apply the technology
appropriately and in a way that will benefit humankind, not confuse it.
In the end, as Gaspar the Alba poses: “will only scientific audiences receive full
information?” (3). As Anthropology turns a page into the 21 st Century, its duty is not only to
modernize, but also to make sure that the information obtained is used properly despite the
commercial usages such information may pose. Anthropology is the ‘Rosetta Stone’ we need to
understand all cultures and all peoples, and the new technologies are affirming its position as a
science that helps us understand who we are and where we come from; developing a sense of
responsibility for such knowledge is essential for its future as a science and its survival as a field.
Bibliography
Bettinger, Robert L.; Eerkens, Jelmer “Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread
C a b a l l e r o P r i e t o | 11
Brown, Kate Robson; Wood, Helen; “The Utility of Minimal CT Scanning in the Study of Two
9: 199-204
Cheikh, Anta Diop, “Nations Nègres et Culture. De l'antiquité nègre égyptienne aux problèmes
culturels de l'Afrique Noire d'aujourd'hui”, Tome I, Paris: Présence Africaine, 1979, pp.
62, 70.
Dye Lee “Bow and Arrow Presages First Arms Race” Online publication for ABC News
Eklektos, Nikki; Dayal, Manisha R.; Manger, Paul R. “A Forensic Case Study of a Natural
Mummified Brain from the Bushveld of South Africa” Journal of Forensic Science, May
Gaspar de Alba, Rosa Elena (President of the Commission of Visual Anthropology, Mexico)
“Anthropology in the Age of New Technologies” (Online Publication) Jan. 27th 2000
281. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org
Unknown Author “Tutankhamun was not black: Egypt antiquities chief” (2007-09-25)
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A