Nat Geo's "Indiana Jones and the Adventure of Archaeology" gets thumbs up

A meme I came across previously - NOT from the exhibit.

If you've checked out my interactive image "What is Archaeology?" under the Archaeology tab, then you've already gotten a sense of my "Indiana Jones is more a treasure hunter than an archaeologist" viewpoint. So, naturally, I was a little wary going into the exhibition Indiana Jones and the Adventure of Archaeology. But I really should have had more faith that National Geographic would get it right - and NG did just that.

I was impressed to come across sections of the exhibit dedicated to explaining different archaeological methods and how archaeology has developed over the years - it even addresses key issues that archaeologists often face, such as whether an excavation is necessary. Movie props are used to explain some of the real archaeology behind Indiana Jones' reasoning: for example, the Ark of the Covenant is used to explain how archaeologists use historical documents (e.g. religious texts) to infer information, including locations. Additionally, Jones' selection of the correct Holy Grail exemplifies how artifacts reflect the culture, status, and means of an individual.

For this archaeology student, it was an epic experience to walk through an exhibit balanced with Indiana Jones props (I stood inches from several of Harrison Ford's costumes!) and artifacts from the Penn Museum and the NG archives (such as the world's first map written in Akkadian cuneiform [a language that I've studied] and Hiram Bingham's photo album from his exploration of Machu Picchu [I researched the archaeology of Machu Picchu for a class last fall, and was in awe at seeing the originals of pictures that I'd come across in more recent publications]). Overall, this interactive exhibit was excellent, and receives two thumbs up from me.

Hiram Bingham III, featured in the exhibition, is credited
with the discovery of Machu Picchu - which was
originally reported on by NG Magazine.

The cuneiform map that I mentioned above - how cool!

Indiana Jones and the Adventure of Archaeology will be in Washington, D.C. until January 3, 2016. For more information, check out this link. 

Learning "super dead" languages

A few months ago, while talking with a friend about the ancient languages I'm studying, my friend made a humorous comment (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "Latin is a 'dead' language, right? But people still know it even though it doesn't have native speakers anymore. So if that's a 'dead' language, then is that [pointing to my textbook, A Grammar of Akkadian] a 'super dead' language?"

Fast forward to yesterday: While conducting research for my departmental honors thesis, I skimmed through Jeremy A. Black's Reading Sumerian Poetry, in which he states that much of our understanding of Sumerian is derived from our understanding of Akkadian - our understanding of which is derived from its relationship to other Semitic languages (21). In this way, I can see how my friend thought of these languages as "super dead;" compared to a language such as Latin, which is still prevalent in modern languages and possesses a historical context that is much better preserved, Sumerian and Akkadian are much more removed from society.

Additionally, Black addresses the difficulties of reading ancient languages. (I'd like to preface my commentary by stating that there are, in my opinion, two parts to "reading": (1) recognition [of the words], and (2) comprehension [of what the words mean, as well as what significance they carry within their context]. For example, in order to read the sentence Hannah went to the store, I must first recognize these words, and then comprehend their meanings - such as that Hannah is a proper noun referring to an individual [who she is and what she does may also signify additional meaning]; went is a verb that implies movement from one point to another; to indicates how this movement is working; and the store could refer to several different places and concepts [i.e. the grocery store; the shopping mall; specifically, local]. This concept of reading is just as prevalent in a modern language as it is in an ancient language.) Black acknowledges that our "knowledge of the Sumerian language" is "incomplete" and, thus, causes a lack of satisfaction in understanding and interpreting Sumerian poetry (20). He goes on to discuss the difficulties of interpretation that ensue from this lack of knowledge, such as "ignorance of the precise meaning of a word" (21) and a lack of "historical framework" (23) - both of which concern how external cultural context (whether implicit in the language itself or as part of the greater historical context of the text) affect our reading of a text.

Don't take modern languages for granted - their contexts are much more readily available! Despite the difficulties, learning a "super dead" language is super rewarding. This is just another example of how interconnected culture and language are - and another example of how much we can learn about ancient peoples through their languages!



Black, Jeremy A. Reading Sumerian Poetry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. Print.

Gender neutral pronouns?

I came across this article today while scrolling through Twitter, and it is interesting timing as I recently attended a literary performance with Ivan Coyote. Interesting timing, I say, because Ivan openly writes (beautiful, beautiful stories) about their life experiences - including that Ivan is a trans-gendered male.

Going into the event, I had a limited basic understanding of "trans-people" and was confused by the use of pronouns: If an individual is born one gender, but identifies with the other, and accordingly, takes steps up to and including surgery to transform into the gender with which they identify, then why may such an individual employ gender neutral plural pronouns (i.e. they and their)? Is it that some trans-gendered individuals, such as Ivan, have had "top surgery," but not - for lack of better terminology - "bottom surgery," and therefore, are technically both genders?

I am still unclear on this issue of pronouns; regardless, I thought of this matter while reading the above-linked article when it stated that "the need for a gender neutral pronoun is evident." Indeed, Ivan stated, "We've been here," and so, then, has this need for "non-binary" gender pronouns. In order for such additions to be made to the English language, I think our societal gender constructs must (obviously) be disassembled in the process... How long before individuals like Ivan stop being "they" and start being the one person they are meant to be? This is an intriguing issue that appears to be gaining more traction, and I am interested to see how it - and our pronouns - develop.

Hello, and come again

I'm in the process of getting ArchLing up and running, so check back to see what I've added! Things on the docket: resources I swear by as an undergraduate student, a field school review, ruminations on linguistic anthropology, and much more!