#white supremacist archaeology

[jessicalprice]

you got your known Minoans and your unknown Minoans (part four)

(reposted, with edits, from Twitter)

(part one, part two, part three on Tumblr)

Where were we? Oh yeah, bagging on Arthur Evans, right?

(You’re going to want to read Parts 1-3, linked above, if you haven’t already or this won’t make much sense.)

Did I mention in this that even though women appear frequently in other types of Minoan art, no composite ivory statuettes that are both definitely female and definitely genuine have been found? Interesting side note. Like the one thing we know about the Minoans is Snake Goddesses, right? Well, that and Bull Jumpers.

It’s hard to overstate the hold Minoan art still has on the Western imagination.

Image: A copy of a translation of the Odyssey, using the Blue Ladies fresco as cover art. Ironic, given that the culture that produced the Odyssey is probably the one that destroyed the Minoans.

Anyway, the problem is there are a ton of these composite ivory Minoan goddess statues floating around, none of them have reliable provenience, and they're what were used to authenticate each other. See the problem?

Some of them are proven forgeries. So a lot of what is "Minoan-looking" in our minds is forgeries, possible forgeries, and "restorations" done by turn-of-the-century artists.

And as we learn more about them, we find out that a lot of the assumptions were very much dictated by Victorian expectations. Those "corsets" or "jackets" Minoan women are depicted as wearing? Actually shifts with skirts tied around them. 

There are a lot of problems with the Boston Goddess. She's too skinny, for one. And if, as some have suggested, her hips and butt are so flat because the ivory is significantly worn away, how are the details of her flounces still visible there? The Boston Goddess (or rather, the fragments of her not used in the restoration), the Seattle Boy-God, and the Ashmolean Boy-God have all been carbon tested. The results were intriguing-- 250ish years old for the Ashmolean figure, and 400-500 for the other two. That's deeply weird. Obviously, the ivory is far too new for them to be genuinely Minoan, but it's awfully old for a Victorian forgery.

But in any case, enough about the artifacts themselves. I want to talk about the conclusions Evans drew from them, which have been repeated as fact in a lot of books and textbooks and journals and magazines since. 

The Great Goddess and Her Salesman-Priest

Classical goddesses go in and out of fashion. For most of the Renaissance, all the way to the 1800s, writers mentioned Venus and Diana most often, followed by Minerva/Athena and Juno/Hera. Diana was associated primarily with chastity.

In the Romantic era, Venus was still the most popular goddess (although she was now associated with natural surroundings), and Diana was associated with the moon and animals more than chastity. Proserpina/Persephone and Ceres/Demeter also gained prominence (earth/seasons). 

So, the Romantics were very much enamored with the idea of Mother Earth/nature as female (go conquest that land in "virgin" America, yo). The concept wasn't new--lots of cultures personify the earth as female--but this was very much a 19th-century European imagining. 

Basically a lot of Victorian dudes liked the idea of their porn involving pretty landscapes.

So, along comes a German dude named Friedrich Wilhelm Eduard Gerhard, because everything you say is credible if you're a white dude with four names, who's like "hey maybe all those Greek goddesses were actually ONE goddess, and she was Mother Earth, that tempestuous temptress."

And like as far as I can tell, that was it. That's the Tweet. He had An Idea about how ancient religion might have worked, and everyone nodded sagely and suddenly it was a theory. The Greeks actually believed in one goddess, with a bunch of different faces.

And then, some of those other dudes nodding along sagely to this theory that didn't arise organically from studying the actual writings and artifacts of the time, but from Mother Earth as a concept being trendy in the 1850s, were like, hey, so we know that the Anatolians and Mesopotamians influenced ancient Greek thought, so if the Greeks worshipped a single goddess, the Anatolians and Mesopotamians must have too!

And then they were like, hey, it was probably also true across Europe! Because there's this <checks notes> Swiss judge named JJ who thinks all of human society was once matriarchal and only later evolved into patriarchy so it seems logical that everyone worshipped a goddess.

For those following along at home, no, this is not how logic works, but these dudes were probably drinking a LOT of absinthe.

Goddess Worship Isn’t Love For Women

Now, one might point out, for example, that the ancient Athenians literally had a goddess as their patron deity and still managed to, arguably, utterly despise women more than anyone else in the world at that time, so clearly goddess worship doesn’t automatically equate to matriarchy, but anyway.

But Jessica! (I can hear you saying, o theoretical reader) You're such a shrieking feminist harpy that you put "howling maenad" in your Twitter bio. Why are you objecting to the idea of widespread ancient matriarchy and female-centered monotheism (or duotheism, since there was also a god)?

Well, here's the thing. It's certainly a cool idea. And it even makes a sort of pop-psychology sense. Back in the Stone Age, maybe men hadn't yet figured out that they were involved in the reproductive process and so deferred to women as life-givers.

But that sort of thinking can lead us to dismiss or ignore real history. Women have always led, women have always fought, women have always ruled, and that shouldn't be manwashed away. But that doesn't mean it was normative. And it matters--both for truthfulness and to fully appreciate what the women who managed to lead actually accomplished--if it wasn't normative. It can also make us miss that matriarchy--*real* matriarchy--isn't necessarily the mirror of patriarchy.

When I was in college, in one of my anthropology classes, we had a textbook that said that there was no such thing as matriarchy, except as a theoretical concept. There was matrilineality, and matrilocality, but not matriarchy.

Was it true? Well, here's the thing: if you define matriarchy as we define patriarchy, but just replace "men" with "women" in the description, arguably it is true that matriarchy doesn't exist. To the best of my knowledge, no one’s found evidence of societies where women treat men like men treat women in patriarchal societies.

But there are, and have been, societies where women own the property, societies in which elder women are the primary leaders/authorities, etc. But they don't attempt to exert control over men in the same way men do over women in a lot of patriarchal societies. So it becomes largely a semantic argument. If it isn't an exact analogue to patriarchy, is it matriarchy? Honestly, I've ceased caring all that much about the terminology, and am more interested in how leadership and authority function in those societies.

But anyway, the Romantics weren't feminists. Just because you like the idea of the feminine as emotional and intuitive and nature-y doesn't mean you give a shit about actual women. And as the Victorian Angel In The House would show us, every pedestal has a cage atop it.

The Romantics might profess to revere Mother Nature, but at the end of the day, they revered her as an object: there to be conquered if they wanted to feel manly, there to challenge them if they wanted to feel manly in a different way, there to soothe and inspire them as Muse, and even there to kill them if they were into the idea of la petite mort being la grand mort.

Image: Just a dude really into being penetrated... with arrows. 

And Bachofen, our pal JJ the Swiss judge who also had Theories about anthropology, considered humanity's "Demetrian" matriarchal stage just a necessary transitional period on its way to "Apolline" patriarchy, the pinnacle of human evolution.

They dug up a lot of Venus of Willendorf-like figurines (lots of male-looking and animal ones too, but those didn't fit the theory and got ignored) and decided that they represented a single prehistoric Mother Goddess, source of fertility.

I mean here's the thing: when archaeologists find something and they don't know what it is or what it's used for, a popular default category is "ritual object." If you then start forming theories about how religion worked based on your collection of ritual objects, well, you can imagine how that goes.

So this is the milieu into which Arthur Evans was to release his Minoan discoveries. He writes a lot about the "Great Minoan Goddess" and "the matriarchal stage of society, to which the Minoan religious system owes its origin."

I Regret to Introduce You To Jane Harrison...

So along comes Jane Harrison, who is all into JJ's theory about ancient matriarchy as the fullest collection of "ancient facts"--poof! the theory has become fact--and was also very into the idea that all goddesses are actually a single Great Goddess.

If you don't know anything about Jane Harrison, you might be thinking, "oh, good! at last, a woman weighing in on ancient matriarchy. Perhaps we'll get a take that isn't so... patriarchal.”

Allow me to introduce you to Jane Harrison: 

"Matriarchy gave women a false sense of magical prestige. With patriarchy came inevitably the facing of a real fact, the fact of the greater natural weakness of women. Man is the stronger, and when he outgrew his belief in the magical potency of woman, proceeded by a pardonable practical logic to despise and enslave her."

...And All These Other Assholes

Another member of these circles was Sir James George Frazer (only three names there, but also has a "Sir" so probably as credible as the four-name dude). Remember him? The Golden Bough? Yeah.

He looooved the idea of a single Great Mother Goddess and attempted to collect and catalogue world myth and folktales and wanted to trace her and her ever-dying younger consort as a universal or near-universal archetype in human consciousness.

You want Joseph Campbells? This is how you get Joseph Campbells. But Joseph Campbell is a rant for another time.

Carl Jung and Marija Gimbutas, incidentally, thought along similar lines and considered it a universal archetype present in all human psyches, and all cultures. 

No writing or art about it from a particular culture? No evidence that it’s actually a thing? *hand wave* Whatever.

Part of what was animating all this thought was confidence that human culture was evolutionary--that there was a relatively smooth line of human progress from a primitive past to an enlightened present to a utopian future.

I mean, the Bronze Age collapse might beg to differ. But what do I know? I'm not a white dude with four names and or a "Sir".

Incidentally, this Victorian confidence that human civilization is smoothly evolutionary appears to be literally killing us right now but let's pretend this is all fun archaeology stuff to mute the silent internal screaming.

Oh Wait, I Forgot To Tell You About The Cat

Anyway. All of these assumptions very much influenced how Evans interpreted what he found, and presented it to the public. Female snake handlers, for example, are actually pretty rare in Minoan art (maybe even all forged), but you wouldn't know that from textbooks about it.

It affected how he arranged the things he found when attempting to recreate altar assemblages.

That cross in the assemblage above? They found that and decided that it MUST have religious significance and be the centerpiece of an altar... ...because Christianity, basically.

You know that famous Snake Goddess figurine?

The faience one that isn't a suspected complete fake? You've probably seen her. You can buy earrings of her on Etsy.

That cat on her head?

Yeah, it's a random cat that they found elsewhere and decided to stick on her head.  

...because the Anatolian and Mesopotamian goddesses they liked to use as proof of a universal singular Great Mother Goddess were often pictured with lions.

So, you know: cat-hat. 

About Those Snakes...

So anyway, snake-handling female figures were actually a relatively rare find in Minoan art, but Evans decided she was their central deity, a manifestation of the Great Mother Goddess whose primary attribute was fertility.

But here's the thing: we don't have any writings we can read from the Minoans. All we have is visuals (mostly "restored" by Victorian artists), and we don't *know* what any of their symbolism meant to them. And even a lot of the visuals aren't helpful.

We know that depicting women with bared breasts (not topless, with a garment framing them, which seems very deliberate) was a thing. We don't know what that means. We don't know if this was reflective of *actual clothes that women wore* or whether it's symbolic (like Artemis wearing a crescent moon in her hair). We don't know what breasts meant, in their visual language.

Minoan art doesn't depict children very often, and doesn't depict nursing mothers at all (unlike Egyptian or mainland Greek art). So do breasts represent fertility in their visual vocabulary? No idea.

Are bared breasts considered erotic? Again, no idea. That assumption was strongly tied to the snakes, which are tied to Christian associations of snakes with sexuality--specifically sexual sin. If the bared-breasts women were actually even originally depicted with snakes.

Ultimately, we don't even know if the statue of a snake-handling woman represents a goddess, a priestess, or a woman representing or symbolizing something else entirely. Frankly, we don't even know what her face actually looked like.

Despite various authors rhapsodizing about the "sternness of her expression" and whatever else, the entire face of this famous statue, and her snakes, were fashioned by Halvor Bagge, a restorer/artist. She might have been holding sheaves of grain, for instance. She might have been smiling gently. She might have looked afraid. We don't know.

We know very little. 

Who Better To Say What We Want than Those Who Can’t Speak?

Because the Minoans didn't leave behind any writing we can read, and most of the art we have from them had to be heavily restored by Victorian artists, they provided a perfect blank slate for Victorian men desperate to prove European superiority to project onto.

Now. Archaeologists *aren't* just people who dig up old stuff. Interpreting the past is something we have to do if we want to try to understand it. And there's nothing wrong with putting forth theories. But it becomes a problem when it's not made clear that these are theories, when theories are built upon theories upon theories upon theories, with no clear substantiation for any of it. Theory slides into "fact" very easily.

And it can very easily become circular. Evans used theories about other cultures worshipping a single Great Goddess to guide what he looked for on Crete and how to present what he found, which has looped around to Crete being the center of Great Goddess worship and being used to substantiate the idea of singular Great Goddess worship in some of the same cultures whose practices were used to suggest that Crete might be like they were. Much like ivory statuettes with no provenience were used to substantiate others.

And all of that is then used as evidence of How Human Culture Works. So suddenly The Center Of Ancient Mediterranean Worship is safely in Europe.

When, as far as what can actually be verified, what doesn't come out of the airy, tempestuous realms of Romantic theory, is almost nothing. 

We still don't know the Minoans.

Fin.

#archaeology #arthur evans #crete #white supremacist archaeology #snake goddess #art forgery #minoan art #matriarchy #goddess worship #the great goddess #romanticism #minoan #minoans

[decolonize-the-left]

So idk if y'all are aware of the Clovis people theory. Where there were these people that crossed the land bridge™ and were the first to settle north america.

Natives have said since day 1 this is incorrect and I've yet to say anyone who isn't a white supremacist even bring it up. Why? It's the "natives weren't the first people here either" gotcha. "They killed the Clovis ppl, there's proof." It's just a challenge to our indigeneity and right to exist here.

Anyway.

They (archeologists & paleontologists) keep finding evidence that people were here before the land bridge even existed, like tens of thousands years earlier.

But it's still just a controversial theory to say that people were here before the land bridge? To the point where the Larger scientist community is saying that even the findings themselves are controversial.

Yeah.

Physical, carbon-dated foot prints and mammoth bones are being challenged by the (Racist) Scientists Community who want facts that don't serve their racist agenda to not exist and not be considered.

Just in case you didn't know.

This is still on the government site under humanities. Updated in 2014.

It's the first result when I ask Google who the oldest tribe is.

In the 1970s, college students in archaeology such as myself learned that the first human beings to arrive in North America had come over a land bridge from Asia and Siberia approximately 13,000 to 13,500 years ago. These people, the first North Americans, were known collectively as Clovis people.

And if the Clovis people are in fact real (and not just a nomadic native tribe that scientists decided came from the land bridge) that would also challenge the concept that natives were aggressive and uncivil. As Clovis sites have been found in from Upper canada all the way to and across central America.

If they came from the land bridge and lived so nomadically in such numbers it means that natives weren't the territorial genocidal race purists that revisionists try to paint us as.

"controversial" indeed

#when i tell you racism and anti indigeneity is baked into everything

[wolverinesorcery]

UNBLENDING CELTIC POLYTHEISTIC PRACTICES

Celtic Umbrella

This lesson is largely focusing on the insular Celtic nations & Brittany (Ireland/Eire, Scotland/Alba, Wales/Cymru, Cornwall/Kernow, Isle of Man/Mannin, & Brittany/Breizh) - traditionally regarded as 6 out of the 7 Celtic nations. Galicia/Galizia is the 7th, but because of a mix of the below + my own lack of knowledge, I won't be covering them.

The vast swath of Continental Celtic cultures are a different but equally complex topic thanks to extinction, revival, varying archaeological artefacts and the work of modern practioners to piece unknown parts back together.

This will serve as a quick 'n' dirty guide to the insular Celtic nations, Celtic as a label, blood percentages and ancestry, the whats and whys of "Celtic soup", and how to unblend practice.

The insular Celtic groups are split into two language groups: Brythonic languages and Gaelic languages.

Brythonic languages are Cymraeg/Welsh, Kernewek/Cornish, & Breton

Gaelic languages are Gàidhlig/Scottish, Gaeilge/Irish, & Gaelg/Manx.

The language split leads to certain folkloric and religious figures & elements being more common within the language group than without. All of these nations had historic cultural exchange and trade routes via the Celtic sea (and beyond). Despite this, it is still important to respect each as a home to distinct mythologies.

Pros/Cons of a broad Celtic umbrella

Pros

- Used within celtic nations to build solidarity - Relates to a set of cultures that have historic cultural exchange & broad shared experiences - A historic group category - Celtic nations’ culture is often protected under broad legislation that explicitly highlights its ‘Celtic-ness’.

Cons

- Can be used reductively (in academia & layman uses) - Often gives in to the dual threat of romanticisation/fetishisation & erasure - Conflates a lot of disparate practices under one banner - Can lead to centring ‘celtic american’ experiences. - Celtic as a broad ancestral category (along with associated symbols) has also been co-opted by white supremacist organisations.

In this I’m using ‘Celtic’ as a broad umbrella for the multiple pantheons! This isn’t ideal for specifics, but it is the fastest way to refer to the various pantheons of deities that’ll be referenced within this Q&A (& something that I use as a self identifier alongside Cornish).

What about blood % or ancestry?

A blood percentage or claimed Celtic ancestry is NOT a requirement to be a follower of any of the Celtic pantheons. The assumption that it does or is needed to disclose can feed easily into white supremacist narratives and rhetoric, along side the insidious implications that a white person in the USA with (perceived or real) Celtic ancestry is 'more celtic' than a person of colour living in a Celtic region (along with other romanticised notions of homogenously white cultures).

Along side this, a blood percentage or distant ancestry does not impart the culture and values of the Celtic region or it's recorded pagan practices by itself. Folk traditions are often passed down within families, but blood percentage is not a primary factor within this.

Connecting with ancestry is fine, good, and can be a fulfilling experience. It stops being beneficial when it leads to speaking over people with lived experiences & centres the USA-based published and authors - which can lead to blending/souping for reasons further on.

What is 'soup'?

Celtic soup is a semi-playful term coined by several polytheists (primarily aigeannagusacair on wordpress) to describe the phenomenon of conflating & combining all the separate pantheons and practices from the (mainly) insular Celtic nations into one singular practice - removing a lot of the regionalised folklore, associated mythos, & varying nuances of the nations that make up the soup.

Why does it happen?

The quick version of this is book trends and publishing meeting romanticisation and exotification of Celtic cultures (especially when mixed with pre-lapsarian views of the Nations). It's miles easier to sell a very generally titled book with a lot of Ireland and a little of everywhere else than it is to write, source and publish a separate book on each.

This is where centering American publishers and authors becomes an issue - the popular trend of USA-based pagan publications to conflate all celtic nations makes it hard to find information on, for example, Mannin practices because of the USA’s tendency to dominate media. Think of Llewellyn’s “Celtic Wisdom” series of books.

It has also been furthered by 'quick research guides'/TL;DR style posts based on the above (which have gained particular momentum on tumblr).

The things that have hindered the process in unblending/"de souping" is the difficulty in preserving independently published pamphlets/books from various nations (often more regionalised and immediately local than large, sweeping books generalising multiple practices) along with the difficulty of accessing historic resources via academic gatekeeping.

All of this has lead to a lack of awareness of the fact there is no, one, singular Celtic religion, practice or pantheon.

Why should I de-soup or unblend my practice?

Respecting the deities

It is, by and large, considered the bare minimum to understand and research a deity's origin and roots. The conflation of all insular Celtic deities under one singular unified pantheon can divorce them from their original cultures and contexts - the direct opposite to understanding and researching.

Folklore and myth surrounding various Celtic deities can be highly regionalised both in grounded reality and geomythically - these aren't interchangeable locations and are often highly symbolic within each nation.

Brú na Bóinne, an ancient burial mound in Ireland, as an entrance to the otherworld of the Tuatha Dé Danann.

Carn Kenidjack & the Gump as a central site of Cornish folk entities feasts and parties, including Christianised elements of Bucca’s mythology.

The Mabinogion includes specific locations in Wales as well as broad Kingdoms - it’s implied that Annwn is somewhere within the historic kingdom of Dyfed, & two otherworldly feasts take place in Harlech & Ynys Gwales.

Conflating all celtic pantheons under one banner often leads to the prioritisation of the Irish pantheon, meaning all of the less ‘popular’ or recorded deities are sidelined and often left unresearched (which can lead to sources & resources falling into obscurity and becoming difficult to access).

Respecting the deities

Deities, spirits, entities, myth & folklore are often culturally significant both historically and to modern day people (just average folks along with practitoners/pagans/polytheists and organisations) located in the various Nations

A primary example is the initiatory Bardic orders of Wales and Cornwall.

Desouping/Unblending makes folklorist's lives easier as well as casual research less difficult to parse. The general books are a helpful jumping off point but when they constitute the bulk of writing on various Celtic polytheisms, they become a hinderance and a harm in the research process.

A lot of mythology outside of deities & polytheisms is also a victim of ‘souping' and is equally as culturally significant - Arthurian mythology is a feature of both Welsh and Cornish culture but is often applied liberally as an English mythology & and English figure.

Celtic nations being blended into one homogenous group is an easy way to erase cultural differences and remove agency from the people living in celtic nations. Cornwall is already considered by a large majority of people to be just an English county, and many areas of Wales are being renamed in English for the ease of English tourists.

How can I de-soup?

Chase down your sources' sources, and look for even more sources

Check your sources critically. Do they conflate all pantheons as one? Do they apply a collective label (the celts/celts/celt/celtic people) to modern day Celtic nations? How far back in history do they claim to reach?

Research the author, are they dubious in more ways than one? Have they written blog articles you can access to understand more of their viewpoints? Where are they located?

Find the people the author cites within their work - it can be time consuming but incredibly rewarding and can also give a good hint at the author's biases and research depth. You may even find useful further reading!

Find primary sources (or as close too), or translations of the originating folklore, e.g The Mabinogion. Going to the source of a pantheon’s mythos and folklore can be helpful in discerning where soup begins in more recent books as well as gaining insight into deities' actions and relationships.

Ask lots of questions

Question every source! Question every person telling you things that don't define what pantheon or region they’re talking about! Write all your questions down and search for answers! Talk to other polytheists that follow specific Celtic pantheons, find where your practices naturally overlap and where they have been forced into one practice by authors!

Be honest with yourself

There’s no foul in spreading your worship over several pantheons that fall under the celtic umbrella! A lot of polytheists worship multiple pantheons! But be aware of the potential for soup, and make sure you’re not exclusively reading and working from/with sources that conflate all practices as one.

If you approach any Celtic polytheistic path with the attitude of blood percentage or 'ancestral right', stop and think critically about why you want to follow a Celtic polytheistic path. Is it because it's the most obviously 'open' path to follow? Is it a desire to experience what other folks experience? Being critical, turning inward, and really looking at yourself is important. Originally posted in the Raven's Keep discord server

#celtic polytheism #celtic paganism #celtic soup #celtic #celtic reconstructionism #celtic revivalism #celtic polytheist #celtic pagan #celtic religion

[blackberryjambaby]

video essays i adore (and you should watch)

when hollywood speaks chinese, i cringe

salvador dali's 'the persistence of memory': great art explained

nighthawks by edward hopper: great art explained

the baghdad battery? archeologist reacts! (reaction to & correction of awful archaeology ep 6: the baghdad battery)

remembering with a twist - a jojo rabbit & the book thief video essay

why is cottagecore so gay?

bo burnham's inside and "white liberal performative art"

overanalysing barbie movies with queer marxist theory

how white supremacists hide in plain sight

the constructive narrative of kitchen nightmares

life and death in medieval london with dr eleanor janega

the counteract: why the one direction fandom is predominantly queer

in search of a flat earth

the true horror of midsommar (feat. jack saint)

the rise and fall of abby lee miller part one (part two isn't up yet)

elvis (2022) and the mediocrity of bipocs

#rj speaks #i have so many more but this feels long already #video essays #idk how to tag this #hollywood #chinese #salvador dali #persistence of memory #nighthawks #edward hopper #baghdad battery #awful archaeology #jojo rabbit #the book thief #cottagecore #bo burnham inside #liberal perfomance art #barbie #marxist theory #queer #kitchen nightmares #white supremacy #medieval london #eleanor janega #one direction #flat earth #midsommar #abby lee miller #elvis (2022)

[god-of-annwn]

Welcome to my grimoire 🦇

24 year old Pagan, he/him

Follower of the celtic pantheon

Welsh blood, born and bred

Lover of folklore, the occult, druidry, archaeology, history ect.

Medieval history masters student

DNI: white supremacists, terfs, harry potter fans

[jewfrogs]

reading hamilakis decolonizing greek archaeology and the place greece occupies in the mechanisms of colonialism & imperialism &c is wild. the ancient “classical” imperial past claimed as ancestral by both nationalist fascists & western european white supremacists. orientalism. the tendency towards marginalization of contemporary greece by said supremacists & their discourses in ways that echo processes of racialization, which becomes significant fuel for the fire of the aforementioned nationalist fascist movements. the four centuries of occupation (more fuel). the ahistorical application of greek identity to create continuity. the outside denial of continuity. world war two, even

#ribbits

[empress-hancock]

Something that I think is very important to keep in mind regarding the argument that “this objective observation can be used in a bad way so you shouldn’t say it” is something my archaeology professor brought up to our class a few years ago. She talked about how limiting that argument is to the spread of information, and she gave this example:

A team of anthropologists published a study discussing lactose intolerance and its relation to regions across the world. The fact was, many nations populated predominantly by non-white people had higher rates of lactose intolerance. They published this study as nothing more than an objective observation, and discussed the influence that the behaviors and eating habits of generations centuries before contributed to this modern day pattern. Some white supremacists then took this paper and started parading it around as “proof” that white people are superior.

The questions we must ask ourselves regrading this circumstance are as such; are the archaeologists at fault for publishing the study? Should they have kept it to themselves to prevent this? Are they responsible for predicting the responses to their study and taking steps to prevent any ridiculous claim made based on it? Is their publication of objective fact dangerous because other people with nefarious motivations may use it to their own advantage? And finally, how would withholding basic information simply because someone might attempt to twist it to uphold their chosen narrative affect the world and the spread of information as a whole?

#sharing objective information is not handing a key to those with ill intent #it is like handing everyone a piece of metal because they need it. and while some do something worthwhile with it. a few may choose to #carve it into a key. but the people sharing the information can’t be held responsible for what others choose to do with it #unless they deliberately urged others to misuse it

[greysfic]

Cults Of The Low Politan Age: Stonecutters

The Stonecutters emerged during the High Dark Age, following the Winter War, as the existing kingdoms of northern Imeria fractured into smaller nations and economies began to transition from feudalism to mercantilism. A loose affiliation of artisans, the early Stonecutters were a mix of organic theologians and amateur scholars who either by study of Pre-Reformation texts on the god Degra Veen or by a kind of natural inclination arrived at the concept of Divine Emulation. Prior to the Second Church elevating him to supreme universal deity, Degra Veen was a forge-god and earthshaper, variously secondary or equal to the Holy Mother Ivarra, goddess of the sun. The Stonecutters reasoned, therefore, that the act of creation - especially the working of stone or metal - was a form of communion with their god. Every finished work of craft was sacred, a step closer to divinity, seeking not to be as god is, but to do as he does in a way which was not in line with the Church's philosophy of submission. The Stonecutters were denounced as heretics by Pontiff Manus III during the Interregnum, but as they were in practical terms eccentrics, pillars of the community, or entirely spontaneous practitioners with no connection to the (mostly wealthy urban) Stonecutter movement the Inquisition and church more broadly ignored them except where it might be politically expedient. And it became politically expedient during the Stadsringe Period when the Stonecutters who had been in a position to become wealthy and influential in the new economy threatened the power of the Reform Church. The movement declared to be a heretical conspiracy and implied to be in league with demonic forces, which unfortunately for the Stonecutters was sometimes correct as their membership became more secular and more inclined to plumb occult knowledge either for profit or curiosity. The Stonecutters became more secretive as a result, and went from a fringe religious sect to a secret society of merchants and later capital owners, evading the attentions of the church as their financial and political interests aligned - particularly in colonial projects. Following internal conflicts over topics ranging from the proper way to conduct a genocide, secularism, stock manipulation, and adultery the Stonecutters broke into a number of smaller organisations which persist in some form today. The Stonecutter Order are a publicly known club for those who can pay the membership fee. The Sacred Brotherhood of Stonecutters are a white supremacist organisation limited to former colonies. The Wise Artisans are a Stonecutter splinter who operate an occult study group, part historical and archaeological society, part religious organisation. The Architects Of The Turn are, officially, a work of fiction, the fancy of conspiracists and the mentally unwell. A splinter of the Stonecutters who were seduced entirely by a Demon who serves now as their patron, imbued with dark power to carry out their master's terrible machinations. The Federal Board of Oversight does not even entertain such quaint last-century delusions with explicit rejection.

#writing #ttrpg #dark fantasy #demons #tabletop roleplaying #worldbuilding

[kimyoonmiauthor]

Worldbuilding: Physical Anthropology

As usual, this won’t substitute for you taking the actual class/es and this only covers Worldbuilding topics. And if you want to challenge anything, please do so with reliable sources. I will give you credit if you are correct and I can double verify your sources from reputable sources.

So, if you don’t have any interest in writing humans, some of this will STILL be useful. This does hope that you have basic understanding of genetics, aren’t creationists, and leans heavily more into the science end of things. I’m only going to gloss over the early homonins since the majority of people aren’t writing homonins into their SFF (though WHY NOT? A few Neanderthal wouldn’t be unwelcome?)

Myths about the Story of Whiteness

This is about where real facts hurt some people... but anyway, there is a line here, where it gets extreme--I mark that point for PoCs. I know people go with the “I can do what I want, it’s my story.” And again, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. And especially after the line marked clearly “Content Warning”, you’re plain being racist.

Honestly, this might make people a bit displeased, but yeah, we’re starting here. Either you like science and facts, or you are more pleased with being a white supremacist. And sorry, I’m more on the side of facts.

This is because people try to hang onto agricultural white people SO HARD in order to be (racist) about PoCs and expel them from their world and any involvement of PoCs, even as OMG, a trader/merchant. So bringing some anthropology to dispel this. I should note when I point these things out, white people flip out, even if the evidence is there genetically, geography and archaeology. I’ve had liberal white people really flip out over this. I’d suggest to catch up with the rest of the world and get over it. ALLLSOOO hang on and I’m going to cover a few other things at the end of this section.

“Caucasian” (Race-based term) is a racist lie that fueled Nazism.

This one sends white people over the edge. They super get angry when I take this term away from them. But I feel obligated as an Anthropologist to do it.

This is not going to be fun for anyone. And I’m slapping a 

TRIGGER WARNING: Slavery of women, sex slavery (lightly mentioned), genocide, Naziism, and general headaches in scientific racism follow. Skip to How white people got their skin color if you don’t want to deal with this story.

So a German "Anthropologist” went and managed to get a bunch of skulls, without owner permission, mostly from slaves, and mostly from sex slave women. (My Anthro Prof was very blunt about this part).

And what he did was fill in the eyes part and then packed in the equivalent of “packing peanuts” to measure brain volume.

And low and behold magically, white people came out on top. He made this conclusion and then decided that the location for the rise of white people must be the Caucuses.

This seems brilliant, right? Someone is shouting from the back something like... wait, isn’t brain capacity measured in ccs? Ah, this is the catch part.

So this German anthropologist, turns out to be a dick. He subconsciously packed the “peanuts” more for the white people, really cramming it in there, and then ranked the races by intelligence in the following order:

1. Whites

2. Asians (I’m not sure if he’s counting South Asians in this)

3. Native/Indigenous Peoples. (Probably skips Aboriginals...)

At the bottom Black Africans. (Ignore people of the Pacific and around the Equator...)

A bunch of Scientists, in general, at the time were super in love with the idea that different races were different species to reinforce ideas of... yep. Eugenics.

The part 2 of this is that Guess who, really loved his work? Hitler! Oh, yes. And Hitler decided to use this work as the backbone of Nazism. You thought we weren’t going to get into genocide? He took the “scientific:” work of this German guy and then made up “Aryan” from it and appropriated the svastika, the sign of balance of the universe, flipped and angled it, so that Hindu scholars say that it is “Disharmony” and the rest is a bunch of genocide.

So... revisiting this, this turns out to *gasp* Not be true. (No one is shocked, I hope). And now people measure brain volume of skulls by cc, or water. There is a range, but it has nothing to do with race. (You can *kinda* tell the “race” from bones, which is about 70-80% of the time... but that’s by North American classifications.)

The story of the rise of Caucasian is covered in detail in the hour long video, very, very well. (Not my professor. He told the abridged version of this concluding with, we now measure it with water.) He was rather fun because he told things like methods of murdering a body, and common myths like men have one less rib, (Though I’ve seen an argument that the “One less bone” might be the penis bone and that the “rib” part is mistranslated. lol Whole other thing.) He also answered all of my world building questions with an even keel.

The Cacauses are real... kinda. This is better covered by the longer hour video. Which I swear is worth your time. But basically Caucuses is about geographically accurate as “The Middle East” And the “Middle East” suddenly in the 2000′s including Egypt out of nowhere. And also dictated largely by European convenience. (See Edward Said’s Orientalism.)

So in total, Caucasian in reference to white people as a racial term is connected to...

Sex slavery (of Black and also Eastern European women)

misogyny

racism

hatred of sex workers

hatred of the poor

Genocide of gays, trans, Rromani, Jews.

Religious intolerance

Cultural Misappropriation

Scientific racism

Stealing bodies without consent

I should note that historically at the time, Victorians were also preoccupied with things such as, but not limited to, the idea that poor people had smaller brains. Phrenology. And that poor people were generally morally degenerate because they were “born that way.” Yeah, and you can see this sliding into even more problematic.

I’ve run into white women who after learning all of that, and claiming they are “Liberal” still insist they want to use the term in a racial way. Maybe they support sex slavery and hating women. Who knows. There is a better theory of the origin of white people based on non-arbitrary science, but by genetic analysis.

I think if you find this challenging, as a white person (or maybe a PoC), then the rest of this is going to get exponentially harder.

I’m not leaving you with an anecdote. 

There’s two videos you can examine. One is more of a short information video and the other is an academic lecture.

the short and fun one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKB8hXYod2w&ab_channel=MTVImpact

A tiny disclaimer, I did give her the idea for the video via tumblr. But all the contents of the video are hers.

Or you can have the long academic one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iZDapgQdFo

If you’re dealing with race, it’s probably better to watch the longer lecture because it goes into detail about the above story.

HOW WHITE PEOPLE REALLY GOT THEIR SKIN COLOR

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

People still misread this article and insist on the Caucuses, so I’ll be more blunt here:

The origin of white skin is Sámi.

Sámi are NOT agricultural, traditionally. They are pastoral. This means they migrate around with herd animals. Incidentally this matches much of Siberian subsistence which has a similar climate. They are also famously mistreated by the Scandanavian governments. https://jsis.washington.edu/news/sami-land-rights-and-policy-driven-recognition-threats/ (Of course, in actuality, White supremacists don’t care about them. It’s not a pretty story, is it?)

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html

Because 10,000 years ago, people looked like the Cheddar Man.

Then agriculture arrived about 9,000 years ago

 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-first-farmers-arrived-in-europe-inequality-evolved

There were several waves, including, but not limited to, the Beaker People, who also were darker-skinned than originally thought: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/02/08/story-of-ava/?chrome=1

So, then that’s only Northern Europe... Southern Europe is also interesting: https://www.science.org/content/article/nearly-6000-year-old-chewing-gum-reveals-life-ancient-girl

As soon as 6,000 years ago the prevalent skin color was still dark brown skin.

Wild, isn’t it? Putting the light skin color in Southern Europe around 5,000 years ago.

So your timeline looks like this:

Originally everyone in Europe had dark skin like Cheddar Man.

Around 9,000 BCE, Agriculture develops around Iran. (The latest thought is that was from Migratory Pastoralism, but a disaster happened--will cover that later.)

9-8,000 years ago, Sámi appeared. There’s still some iffiness around how and exact dates.

A waves of immigrants from Western Asia/Northern Africa came to Europe, bringing agriculture at the same time.

Despite the introduction of agriculture, the switch, as it always is, was tough. (Most docs skip over this part because they like to think switching subsistence systems is somehow “advancement” *cough* racism.)

So adaptation of this new subsistence system took some time.

After a few waves, then the people of Europe gradually became more white, and then about 5,000 years ago, the predominant skin color was white in Southern Europe.

People flip out after this because the time stamps. But if you have no stock in melanin telling anything about who you are, or how smart you are or are not, then you shouldn’t care and find this fascinating. But for my fellow PoCs out there, I swear this is a good test of your white friends.

Maybe a rebranding is in order? Articians? 

You can still get PoCs in Artic regions.

Inuit don’t exist for you, apparently. Other Indigenous people from the artic region also exist.

White skin is the need for vitamin D and not being able to get a source of it because of agriculture.

https://anth.la.psu.edu/research/research-labs/jablonski-lab/evolution-of-human-skin-and-skin-pigmentation/

Inuit get vitamin D, so keep their darker skin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502412/

It is true that it is estimated Inuit and others in the region weren’t there as long as Sami, however, the diet also helps quite a bit.

But many Mongolian ethnic groups, also have darker skin and are mostly migratory pastoral.

Albinism=/= white people.

Because apparently Tolkien “fans” thought this would be true with The Rings of Power.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/12/07/457147952/people-of-color-with-albinism-ask-where-do-i-belong

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-44402888

And then they would be super insulted if they cast a Black person with Albinism in the show...

I did cover this in detail before... 

And Tolkien did argue for fish in caves with Gollum.

https://mdc.mo.gov/magazines/conservationist/2005-06/all-about-albinism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716263/

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1013850108

The idea is that true cave populations are more likely to become albino. But this is not true of dwarves, in Tolkien’s world, who are sighted, have agriculture (in part), and are not naked mole rats. Dwarves get out of the caves regularly and are really hairy, and you’d need the albino gene in the first place naturally in the population for this to be so. And Tolkien for the most part doesn’t address genetic diversity of this type. On disability, it’s mostly injuries from war: https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/lvtdp3/disability_and_age_representation_in_the/

Could one do true albinos like naked mole rats as a species? Sure. Why not. Knock yourself out, but keep in mind that skin color does not preclude racial physical features. Also, albinism comes with disabilities too.

The majority of domesticated food stuff does NOT come from Europe. And, in fact, comes from about the same latitude/climate worldwide.

Cambridge History of Food. I love this book. Categorically, the majority of food is not domesticated in Europe.

Cow--not Europe.

Goats, sheep, pigs, etc. Not Europe. Horses--they existed in Europe, but the majority of the domestication is not said to be Europe, and inventions like the stirrip, and pants don’t relate to Europe. (Pants relate to horse riding. Cultures that had horse riding, had women wear pants too.).

Wheat, Oats, Corn, Rice, Barley--also not Europe.

The only one I’ve found thus far they are sure is 100% European is *drumroll* Brussel Sprouts. But let’s be clear here (which I’ll cover) In order to get the domestication of Brussel Sprouts, you need a staple food so you can muck around with other things. So it’s through the help of the introduction of agriculture itself which could allow Europe to develop things like Brussel Sprouts.

Usually around here, people are flipping tables, trying to tell me that I hate white people, trying to get me banned for true facts I pulled from Cambridge History of Food... and blocking me... and I have to say, if this true fact hurts, I think you missed the point.

If you’re super focused on the concentration of your melanin leading you to a fictional “greatness” this sounds like “terrible” news to you. But what I see is that humans are NEVER isolated. They work together over vast expanses. They take ideas and refine them. Carrots wouldn’t be orange without William of Orange. And William of Orange can’t get his name without the invention of the Orange (Southern China, Myanmar, Northeast India https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/1a88363072674762b95e1ab4e7431fd0). It’s not that bad that Europe often took ideas from other regions and tried to innovate them further, or kept the idea going. (The imperialism was awful... yes) Shouldn’t you be celebrating that Europe, much like the rest of the world was cooperating, and doing awesome stuff like the Silk Road for a long time without the imperialism?

I should note for the Tolkien fans... he was very, very particular about food in a way Rings of Power broke. Strawberries? Blueberries? He’d have none of the New World foods. He also had a cut off date for food importation from Earth he inserted.

Will go over this later in the post about subsistence, but the majority of food stuffs comes from about the same latitude/climate type. Because when you have no worries about food supply for the majority of the year, don’t need to pack it in, etc, then you have a lot more time to tinker. Boredom leads to innovation.

The majority of technological inventions did not come from Europe.

This one also ticks off white people, even the most liberal, even when you point out the physical geography and then there is a huge crisis, often because of the over attribution of white skin to greatness, facing the reality is harsh.

You can take pencils, though this is questionable without the invention of writing.

But look it up--arches, not Europe. Boats, not even human? Gothic Architecture is likely from Western Asia and Islamic Empire. Much of Science was taken from Islamic Empire. Maths. Egypt, Congo, and Babylonian. Zero. India. Geographically, Europe is at a Northern latitude with a climate that is not easy to deal with year round, and TINY (smaller than the “traditional” map) compared to rest of the world. Of course proportionally more inventions will come from elsewhere. It’s just a statistical fact.

Again, white people flip the hell out when I say this. But again, the point is INTERCONNECTION. If you’re super focused on “Invention” then you’re wrong.

Gutenberg did not invent the printing press. He did not invent movable type. He did invent an adjustable type mould which allowed the invention of things like serif fonts, type of different sizes, etc. But he depended on those other inventions to make his. But people are super occupied with, “But did he do it independently?” when it was pretty clear he was in a major trading port... (I had to fight the wikipedia page from excising credit for the true invention. The cycle on that page usually goes, someone tries to take off the Chinese and Korean credit. Then someone tries to take off the “In Europe” part and then someone comes and tries to make it “first invention” and then they try to take off the non-supporting links. Because white fragility? Adjustable type mould is just as sexy.)

Does it really matter if he “invented the Printing Press” Why not celebrate the adjustable type mould?

What is wrong with “Not coming up with the idea” when refining the idea is often acknowledged to be more difficult?

But White People did the “Age of Discovery” which is how the world became “connected”

Polynesians would like to have a word with you.

First of all, boats were not invented by white people. Though some anthropologists surmise about Homo Erectus having rafts. That’s not in Europe. https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/page-2

https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/news/newsDetails/plakias-survey-finds-stone-age-tools-on-crete/

Did you think that seriously, in all of that time, People of color because of their melanin were waiting for a white person to use their invention and not doing anything with it?

Plus if you don’t know, Polynesian ocean navigation is !@#$ing cool. And I hope you don’t try to attribute it to another group in your world building. But it’s mind blowing. https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/navigation-and-transportation/wayfinding-and-navigation

They have charts made from shells and sticks, which they use to teach from a young age, and then, you MEMORIZE those charts. I have to keep emphasizing they beat Europeans who were clueless. (I could rave about it for hours, or you can look it up.) Sometimes tattoos are super useful.

One of my professors (BTW, White) made fun of European Navigation because they’d use a “Step Method” go along a latitude for a while, then travel down a longitude for a while. Then try to figure out where they were. Then travel along a latitude. Figure out where they were. And so on.

Polynesians would shit all over that and be laughing their asses off. That’s how cool the ocean navigation system is.

So no, PoCs were not waiting around to be “discovered” by “white people.” Polynesians conquered the seas long before Europe ever tried.

But Flat Earth/ice planet model--white people?

More like dead people.

Unlike what people think, the Artic is not “cold all the time”. And as I said, Sámi are MIGRATORY Pastoralists. On a round planet, the majority of life is where? Rain forests and warmer climates.

You’ve killed off the majority of your life on an ice planet. You have to come up with a reason there is life there with reindeer-like animals and something for them to eat.

I’ll cover this in detail when I get to subsistence, but not likely possible unless humans settled on the planet and there is an external food supply.

Agricultural White people

Only invented in the last 5,000-6,000 years as widespread. In the southern Europe, about only widespread Agriculture ~5-4,000 years ago.

- You need a Gulf Stream-like geography, or you get Siberia, which, BTW, has mostly Pastoralists (Horses, reindeer) (Tolkien would be crying at this one and going on about why his world needs to be round.)

- You need introduction of agriculture with usually a grain (and grains are grass, basically). And the majority of agriculture comes from persistently warmer climates with good growing. (Mediterranean, Tropic.)

- You need less tolerance to lactose and lack of a vitamin D intake.

I should note lightly that as agriculture spread in Europe, it also came with massive deforestation. It’s particularly said of North America with some Native American groups, and of Germany in particular out of all of Europe.

Interestingly enough, a BBC doc also said the lack of trees and rich people hogging land in Europe, may have caused the push towards colonization. (Also very well covered by theories of subsistence).

Skin Movie (2008)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964586/

This is worth your time to watch which will make you think harder on genetics. Based on the true story of a Black woman born to white parents.

CONTENT WARNING LINE (Skip to the end if you can’t handle blatant racism)

from real lines I’ve been told by white writers. Some of them are entertainingly wrong, but some of them are infuriatingly racist. And yeah, I wish I had the imagination to make these things up. And yes, these things are flat out racist.

If you don’t want to read it as a PoC, skip to the next major header. It will help you as a white person, though, to read it.

But I want isolated white people... a white haven.

This is not true for Europe and you’re being racist. But let’s go with your racism and fear of brown and Black people. Let’s go over the major arguments for “making this possible” even though this never ever happened in Earth.

But there are white pockets in the United States.

It is true that particularly in the US, white people tend to racially isolate over PoCs: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=30d2e10d4d694b3eb4dc4d2e58dbb5a5

But I think this is more a result of RACISM, rather than a “Natural occurrence” as these people argue. I’ll go over that if I get to systems.

I was *cough* given the examples of (and I wish I was joking) Russia and Australia.

Russia literally has Asian people in it from the beginning because a large portion is *in Asia* And then I gave them the population numbers.

And I wish I was joking when they said they cried white tears over this fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

Australia, BTW, has Aboriginal peoples. Some geneticists have said that Aboriginal people are closer related to African populations than to surrounding populations such as Chinese, etc.

“How would you feel if you discovered white people in the history archive?”

Yeah, people refute this way.

Korea has influences from China, India, Europe, Japan, Mongolia, and AFRICA. You know what happened when I found out there were Indian people in Korea in the Goryeo era? I was DELIGHTED. OMG, I wanted to know why they were there, if there were historical records, the trade, etc. There has been evidence of a Korean Queen in Iran. And people were DELIGHTED. When I heard there were Black traders in Korea, and Black slaves brought by Portuguese and that Koreans treated the slaves better than Portuguese, I was delighted.

It’s a 100% white reaction to seeing the appearance of anyone of different melanin as a “threat”. This hurts you a lot. You’re letting your racism and deficits from systemic racism rule over your thinking.

But PoCs will “Wipe white people out”

Hahaha. Hahahahaha. Hahahaha. And you’re writing fantasy? Hahahaha. I wish this was fiction, but people like the great white Skunk, Pepe Elmo Le Pew believe this. I’ve heard it on writing forums too.

First of all, White Homo Sapiens sapiens were invented (Checks) what? 8,000 years ago? Maybe 9,000? Were a population minority. And look, weren’t wiped out. But if you’ve truly gotten this far into the post after reading every bit before it and truly think this, I feel sorry for you. (Also still laughing my butt off).

If it was not us, it would have been them

The story of tea by Cognito:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0hlv5sUbw&ab_channel=Cogito

Youtube video, because laying out there history takes a lot of work, and this is more “fun” until you get to the Imperialism part and get depressed.

Basically, as most stories of trade go: Was mostly fine until white people showed up. And I’m always hoping for a decent white dude. But it never goes that way.

Spice trade?: Same thing.

Silk trade: Ah, there was animosity and war over silk with China and India, but kinda settled their differences there. China took the high road, India the low road.

And then *cough* THERE WERE THE POLYNESIANS. Went allllllllll the way to North America took back the Sweet Potato (which does not float like coconuts)

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1221569110#:~:text=Archaeological%20research%20has%20now%20conclusively,3).

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-americans-polynesians-meet-180975269/

and then beat out (looks) Europeans including Leif Erikson. Oh look, try didn’t try to commit mass genocide or take over their land and kick them off to reservations and then appropriated all their possessions.

Nyah, it’s a Europe problem. But a few theories for that. (Nothing solid, but sounds like good theories). Later. Subsistence will cover it. (And then you can troubleshoot your fictional white people so you can argue for less violence.)

Also, I kinda think that people are too addicted to the conflict theory from Percy Lubbock. You probably also should stop believing in the Great Man theory which is still white imperialism.

*Cries* So you’re saying White people are *sniff* Inferior.

Because why not white fragility in here. I think you need to grow up more... but let’s go over this thought process.

There is nothing wrong with a cultural adaptation and evolution of objects. But there is a COST to trying to isolate. And I say this as a Korean.

While Koreans did innovate, such as with celadon pottery, metal movable type (Not Gutenberg), There are a fair amount of imports, mostly from China, but also from other areas, such as Japan, the Siberian Peninsula, Mongolia, India, Vietnam, etc. Koreans don’t deny this truth, in fact it’s a point of pride. Koreans will boast things like hangeul can transcribe most languages because the scholars went to India to study the language there. Korea spent a lot of time refining objects. Clay movable type? Make it metal. Chopsticks? Make them metal. Unlike much of Europe, Koreans (mostly) don’t try to claim on the original objects as 100% theirs in a fit of superiority and definitely not about skin color.

But Korea *did* try to isolate, and some Koreans think it was to our detriment this was so. A lot of contemporary Koreans express regret at this, saying that the transition towards industrialization might have been easier had Korea not tried to isolate.

China, BTW, was able to innovate so much because geographically it is connected to India and Northern China is a different place from Southern China in terms of climate. That connection plays a role in innovation and somewhat in governmental policy.

On both counts, I’m saying I know the costs of both. You are left behind because collectively others are trading, coming up with new ideas and innovating. The idea of a white haven, would throw quite a few problems in, which include, but are not limited to:

- Technological innovation deficits.

I’m saying, for a time Korea was a prime example of this because scholars had to smuggle in “Western Learning”. 

The more people from different places to test an idea, the more likely the idea will be refined. This is often why science is considered “Slow” because you don’t know if it was some other environmental or cultural factors that might be driving the results. You need people to test and retest it. What if the bacteria is growing in the lab faster because of humidity? what if there is a cultural thought of “adding more” to be safe that wasn’t accounted for? What if your main data set came from an HIV clinic in East London that specifically serves underprivileged community and most of the participants are white gay men? (I covered this one with Monkeypox).

Because you have all places on the globe to try, say “The wheel” there’s more places to share ideas about improvements. The light bulb wasn’t Edison’s invention. It was a global effort. Fiction Movies wouldn’t have been possible without global efforts. (And Alice Guy-Blaché)

Humans fundamentally, before homo sapiens sapiens have worked very much on cooperation. 

- Language deficits. Language changes over time with interaction.

There are pocket languages/dialects around the world. But also, often, ideas are tested and innovated, which springs up new language. If you look at the map for the words for “Tea” around the world, you see a sharing of ideas about it. A lot of written language comes from trade.

- The ability to adapt and change to new problems that might arise.

Do you know that Indigenous people saved Irish from complete famine by inventing the potato?

- Paranoia about the outside world

Which then leads to social deficits... When people are left kicking and screaming trying to correct the path, this is a lot longer of a process than cooperating.

Conclusion

White people aren’t great because they were “isolated” as many later White supremacists tried to come up with to try to justify white imperialism. They were great because they were CONNECTED. Look at the location on that map. You got Africa spanning the continent. Africa, which has a ton of inventions going for it. And then you have the West Asia right there, with new agriculture, connected to another major agricultural center: Southern China.

The false stories of whiteness are holding you back which is how privilege often works. You need the myths to hold onto the idea you’re better than everyone else. But often in doing so, you isolate, and then no longer know how to interact with the other. And when that happens, it can cause you to lose the thing that makes humans great: cooperation. (or at least in my mind, nothing sends me over the warm and fuzzy line faster than cooperation.) BTW, this is not the same thing as the other great white argument, “There is no such thing as appropriation,” which I also covered under Cultural Dissemination. You cooperate with consent. You share with consent. Appropriation is stealing for your own gain. And humans definitely do that.

Round Planet==required People of Color

https://www.livescience.com/43674-cancer-skin-color-evolution.html

Darker skin protects from UV, and also is reported to help with retention of foliates. https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/biof.5520100230

Healthy Population numbers

I asked this question just for all of you.

The base population should be about 250 people who can reproduce. If you’re counting children, elderly, etc, then 500-1000 is the healthy number. My Anthropology prof suggested 2 separate towns of 1,000 people total would do it, but of course the more the better.

I should note that humans almost went extinct. And some Anthropologists put the minimum around 18,500 breeding people left. (But think a bit more about LGBTQIA in that which is roughly around 10% and that might cut down--they never think of us queers.).

There is suggestion of doing things like sperm and genetic banks to travel the stars, but you’d still need a method of fertilization and a womb for that. (Artificial wombs are being developed.)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-50056405

“Species” v. “Race” in Fantasy

There’s some argument about in English  (The language), that one cannot use the word “Species” in a fantasy setting, because it’s “too scientific” and Science wasn’t invented until much later, and “race” sounds less scientific.

Etymology doesn’t lie.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/race

n2.

You’re looking at 1774 for the general term, and as “one species” you’re looking at the 19th century. 19th century. Oddly that sounds like when that racist German Anthropologist was operating.

Species as to refer to humans, is OLDER than the word “race” meaning species of human.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Species

Species, as a word dates from late 14th century. 1560 is when the scientific application starts. 1600 is when it takes a more scientific meaning.

19th century v. 1600′s hmmm... which is older.

Linnaeus classification of species is 1735. Systema Naturae.

The thing is, that he insisted on Latin. But your world, you can do whatever you like. This is where, the words, “It’s a story, I can do whatever the fuck I want” are useful. People were talking about species way back into the Medieval period.

And if you see, “race” meaning “Species” or roughly “fantasy races” has a suspicious root back to the 19th century, when they were mucking around with eugenics, and that guy who thinks that Black people are the least smart of all the populations of people based on stolen skulls.

While the classification certainly is out of the Medieval period (since people don’t call the “Enlightenment” Medieval (though some fantasy should play more with that era) such as order and phylum, etc, species, as a concept or a word is not “something that Darwin (and Wallace) created.” It’s like people thinking “fuck” is “really new” and “French” (It’s likely German). If you’re doing everything under the “Myths of Whiteness” and then combining it here with “I must use the word race”, you might, might want to check yourself. Because often the justification for using the myths of Whiteness is “I can do whatever I want it is my story” and “Europe is the best” but confronted that some of the terminology from Fantasy might be “racist” you double down on “It’s tradition.” Yeah, but then my question to pose to you, is what happened to “Historically accurate” and acknowledging that Science in Europe isn’t from the 19th century forwards? Do Other Worlds have to be devoid of scientists for the magic to work? As for the People of Color out there... why do you want to enforce the idea that you are a different species with a different intelligence?

Homonins

Mostly here to make my fellow Anthropologists happy. (Saying there should be other Homonins)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/becoming-human/

This doc is probably the best source for an easy to digest version that’s not the racist 1990′s docs which goes: Man started in Africa (with blackface. TT)->Then the cradle of civilization was in the “Middle East” near the Tigris and Euphrates (They should say Iran, but ya know...)->But then Neanderthal were all wiped out by Homo Sapiens greatness (and maybe dogs)-> White people popped up out of nowhere and then greatness *cue 2001 obelisk music* (The Making of was also racist. You think I would skip over the Making of docs where they literally blackface? BTW, I did bring this up in Anthropology class and ask, WTF do they blackface in anthropology docs? Can they not hire Black people? Awkward stares...)

This one is more global, less racist and goes over specific populations, plus admits its own shortcomings.

Anyway, the point is Homo Erectus is generally thought of as the start of the Homo genus line. There’s debate about how far down and which branches from there feed into ours, but generally the cut off towards “Modern Humans” is Homo Heidelbergensis (Whom they attribute to learning how to make fire and control fire now. A trait some homo sapiens have lost?). That is about 50,000 years of evolutionary difference. (and yes, Humans were hitting that). So when I’m mocking people for things that Homo Erectus innovated and thinking that Modern humans can’t do those things, keep in mind I’m going that far up our family tree. We can’t even remember past mostly 5,000 years ago. And we, as a species around about 200,000 years old. Which BTW, I mock regularly. This would be like a 100 year old not remembering anything past the last 1 year of their life very clearly. Humans are weird creatures.

Homo Erectus invented trade, some think, also made boats. And people are talking about cutting off Homo Sapiens from travel. NOOOO. It’s really, really in our bones. Way back in homonin history. For Xenospecies you can play with this. But for humans, it goes waaaaayyyy back into the nature of homoninity (Not a word, but you know, humanity doesn’t quite work here) itself.

Humans will Travel (and are pests)

Under this rule also, this means no country/nation is not without multiple ethnicities. But a lot of world building tries to make “havens” of X race and ethnicities. But if you’re writing humans it’s doubtful this will stay true.

I was flat out told once someone believed Australia was a white Haven. (The education system must suck) The amount of Blacks, Asians, Aboriginals, etc in Australia met a mental genocide in their mind?

And some people in the US pointed out they didn’t have PoCs around them (even if they are on Indigenous land) Maybe it’s a result of *gasp* racism and white isolationism? The myth goes with white people that PoCs self-isolate, but the dot map disproves this. White people are more likely to self-isolate from PoCs and clear them out than the reverse.

And someone who was writing Russia got super insulted when I pointed out that Russia had more than one ethnicity and some of those ethnicities were not white. (Also pointed out geographically Russia is partially counted as part of Asia.) But *white tears* How dare I point out this truth?

Korea loves, loves saying that Koreans as an ethnic group aren’t that diverse, but as I’ve linked up prior, that isn’t true. The Bon’gwan records sometimes going thousands of years back say this is false. There are several populations today in Korea, in general that are from other locations--Thailand, Japan, China, Vietnam, etc.

BTW, Africans within Africa also moved a lot. (If you watch the PBS doc) What would you have to do to make this true? That humans never traveled.

Well... take a time machine, go back in time. Put a force field around Africa around the time of Homo Erectus, make sure Homo Erectus never leaves Africa (They were in China), and suffers quite a bit for your choice, and cut off the development of all Neanderthal and Denisovans, and then cripple the ability of Homo Sapiens Sapiens to leave Africa during a widespread famine (covered in population numbers) and thus can’t intermarry with Neanderthal and Denisovans to help be better immune to diseases outside of Africa and basically cripple the current Homo sapiens sapiens. Oh and you’d eliminate white people entirely.

The idea that humans magically couldn’t travel once white people were invented is ludicrous. Oh, I’m going to stop doing the thing that Homo Erectus, who had smaller brains than us were doing. C’mon.

https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/page-2

And that PoCs are just going to wait around after the invention of seafaring by Homo Erectus--that’s not even close to Modern Man, for white people to arrive for over 190,000 years, so White people can do the “Age of Discovery” (Age of imperialism and jealousy). Think harder about this one.

I still have bets on Homo Erectus making it through your force field. Homonins are that much of a pest.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/becoming-human/

I mean this whole doc series shows how much of a pest humans are. (And goes over basics of human evolution, though it’s updated, of course, since then).

Marry, Fuck it, Make it a pet, Kill, Eat it

Humans are the weirdest creatures on the planet. And I present to you this...

Generally, humans view objects as “useful” if they can do the things in the header with it or has activities surrounding it.

And as the Torah/Bible says repeatedly, humans will have sex with about anything. “Do not fornicate with animals.” There are human laws against it--and as one apt person put it, often laws mean someone is doing it.

So I don’t believe Tolkien’s line about how humans would never try to fuck a dwarf.

https://thedwarrowscholar.com/2013/04/11/whos-the-bride-dwarven-marriage/

Humans fuck about everything and I say that as someone on the ace spectrum. I get it--aces exist and black stripe aces are super valid, but the majority of humanity is going around and trying to fuck things that vibrate, move, feel warm, and anything they can find.

https://www.theregister.com/2005/07/27/ancient_phallus/

And the thing is that homonins, in generally, fucked each other no matter what their species/genus, which created kind of a river system, where they flow out and then converge again. So Neanderthal... homo sapiens sapiens fucked that.

Denisovans: Sapiens fucked that.

Humans fucking a Tolkien Dwarf? Absolutely would happen in my estimation.

A Tolkien dwarf after all those imposing rules might actually find it freeing to have a human to love. Short term commitment, ya know. And if truly a different species, then no children.

Humans marry buildings, sticks, cartoon characters, etc.

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-woman-marries-building-protest-demolition-224250710.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49343280

Humans make rocks pets.

Humans like to “Kill words” and we’re mass murderers of our and other species.

Humans also try to eat everything. The list of “Things that are poisonous” makes you think, “Ah, a human ate that.” especially when you have “Poisonous to dogs, but not humans.” That means you seriously had a human go, “Welp the dog died, but you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to try to eat it anyway and find out if I die too.”

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/learn/by-eating-disorder/other/pica

And that’s the thing, you got to account for the fucked up variation of humans and human behavior. Also remember, Variation in every population.

Sentient Xenospecies

The trait that makes humans able to build building, make things like Stone Henge, despite being absolutely terrible at handling change is: Cooperation.

This is what separates humans from Octopuses.

It’s surmised that in order to get structures, you need Cooperation. (I know, someone is going to go on, still about the conflict narrative... but Humans are an oddly cooperative species).

So, you need some sort of cooperation in your species to make it work.

If you’re arguing for isolationist species, then no. If you’re saying something like say... rats, rats are not isolationist, and you have to go back to the Biology part.

Once you have cooperative groups, don’t rely solely on agriculture. It might not make sense for your species--which is what happened in Star Trek: Strange New World’s gaffe. Agriculture with grains makes no sense for reptiles.

Surplus can be reached other ways.

Humans hate creatures that are like us: Multiply quickly, are tenacious, spread quickly, tend to kill other things in its path, and are cooperative.

But I kind of think if you’re going to build a “culture” one of the physical behaviors your creatures must have is some form of cooperation. You can play heavily with this, of course and examine it, but if you want space ships, buildings, etc something of that sort has to exist and likely trade. Otherwise, you aren’t dealing with culture at all.

#worldbuilding #anthropology #physical anthropology

[thoughtportal]

Why Archaeologists Are Fuming Over Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse Series 

https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/

In November 2022, Netflix launched a new “docuseries” titled Ancient Apocalypse, presented by journalist Graham Hancock. Over the course of eight episodes, Hancock revivifies long-discounted, Victorian-era views of the ancient past in connection with a great flood and even Atlantis. He also questions the views and motives of professional archaeologists. Hancock’s unfounded hypotheses and attempts to undermine the field of archaeology have now pushed the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) to issue an open letter decrying the show’s disparaging remarks against archaeologists and calling out the show’s alignment with racist theories about the ancient past.

To many, pseudoarchaeology at first appears to be a harmless form of entertainment consumed in jest or by those who revel in tales of lost cities or alien architects. But the recasting of science fiction as historical fact has real consequences. It emboldens conspiracy theorists who then use it to question everything from the legitimacy of the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples, to scientific studies, to the validity of higher education in general. In remarks to Hyperallergic, Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian archaeologist Vivian A. Laughlin noted that although archaeology is a social science, “both the social and scientific aspects are consistently disregarded in pseudoarchaeology.” She and many other professional archaeologists have co-signed the SAA letter’s categorization of the show as “harmful” and rooted in “racist, white supremacist ideologies,” adding that it “does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.” Finally, they called on Netflix to reclassify the series as “science fiction.”

What exactly does this “docuseries” pose that has archaeologists up in arms? In Ancient Apocalypse, Hancock first positions himself as a truth-teller while often reusing theories from the late 19th century. This includes discredited ideas such as those posited by politician and novelist Ignatius Donnelly in his 1882 book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. The book argued that the advanced peoples of Atlantis revealed the secrets of architecture and agriculture to Indigenous peoples. Critic of pseudoarchaeology Jason Colavito has written extensively on Donnelly’s use of Atlantis’s utopian society to critique Reconstruction-era America, all while also reinforcing white supremacy: “Atlantis reflected his ideal American society. Whites ruled, of course, but everyone had a share.” Hancock’s resuscitation of Donnelly breathes air back into ideas and ideologies that, as I have written on prior, are rooted in white supremacy.

Although never trained as an archaeologist, Hancock also scripts himself as the truly reliable narrator who can speak out only because he exists outside of “mainstream archaeology.” It is the same outsider approach taken by showmen like Alex Jones or fellow pseudo-archaeologist Erich von Däniken, both of whom bank on public distrust surrounding science and, increasingly, the conservative suspicion surrounding academia itself. Hancock believes that archaeologists have ignored or even covered up the existence of an “advanced Ice Age civilization.” According to his hypothesis, this innovative culture was wiped out around 12,900 years ago by the impact of a comet that then caused a devastating flood. Hancock notes we have been “lied to by academia for eons” about the existence of this advanced civilization.  

Hancock has been peddling these goods in print for a long time. In his 2015 book, Magicians of the Gods, a sequel to his 1995 Fingerprints of the Gods, he elaborated on a theory from a 2007 study that originally proposed to explain evidence for large-scale extinctions of megafauna in North America using a comet impact. Hancock then universalized this theory and used it to explain the existence of his “advanced” civilization globally. But as Michael Shermer reported for Scientific American over five years ago, not only is there no crater to support this theory, but the radiocarbon dating does not support a unitary event. This comet also conveniently wiped out all evidence of Hancock’s global, advanced civilization except certain sites which show signs of survivors from Atlantis. Explaining the giant stone pillars of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey as the product of some of these survivors robs Neolithic hunter-gatherers of their agency and ability to create their own monumental structures. As Shermer notes, what Hancock counts on when explaining this mysterious, progressive civilization is the “bigotry of low expectations.”

Contrary to Hancock’s depictions of it, archaeology is today an active field predicated on painstaking excavation and the collation and careful analysis of archaeological data. It is also one which relies on public trust in the science and scientists that undergird it. Active movements led by archaeologists in the SAA and the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) have encouraged repatriation and set strong ethical codes for the field. Although movies like the recently-revived Indiana Jones series or Tomb Raider may cast looting as archaeological science, professional archaeological sites uncover, document, and map sometimes only centimeters per day. The field is unique in that it is also dependent upon public knowledge and media attention in order to survive. This is true both in terms of external grant funding for digs and, in the case of sites like Pompeii, Petra, or Chichén Itzá, the money that comes from archaeological tourism. In short, archaeologists need and deserve the trust that Hancock denies them. It may be amusing to believe that academics have joined forces to keep secrets from the public, but honestly, they would be the first to tell the world of such findings.

Beyond the SAA, there are also many individual academics countering Hancock’s false narrative. One of the most longstanding and widely read archaeologists today is Eric H. Cline, a professor of Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies and of Anthropology at George Washington University, who is also the director of the GWU Capitol Archaeological Institute. In addition to continued excavations at Tel Kabri (Tell al-Qahweh in Arabic) in Israel and his previous work at Megiddo — the site where the Book of Revelation foretells that the final battle of Armageddon will take place — he has written extensively on the biblical archaeology behind ideas of the Apocalypse and on the truth behind the “Sea Peoples” alleged to have invaded Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. In remarks to Hyperallergic, Cline notes that there is simply no proof or supporting evidence for an advanced but now lost Ice Age civilization. Rather than presenting much hard evidence, Hancock presents his audience with a flurry of questions (“Is it possible?” or “Could there have been?”). Cline underscores that the inception of doubt in the minds of the viewer often becomes more important than the presentation of facts.

Hancock’s questions and continued jabs at archaeologists throughout the Ancient Apocalypse series is, as the public SAA letter responds to, a tactic for undermining science and scientists who have dedicated their lives to archaeological inquiry. And such questioning is certainly on trend. Cline notes that the show capitalizes on an anti-establishment sentiment all too common since the 2016 presidential election.

“He is appealing to a particular subset of the general public who are now ‘anti-expert’ (on any topic ranging from medicine to archaeology), building on sentiments which came to the fore during the Trump era and continue today,” Cline said. “Ironically, however, he is beholden to the very archaeologists whose work he denigrates, for almost nothing of what he covers or says in the series could have been done without their work and by standing on their shoulders.”

Perhaps two of the most vocal critics of Hancock in print and on Twitter are archaeologists John Hoopes and Flint Dibble. In comments to Hyperallergic, both pointed to the holes and harm inherent in Ancient Apocalypse. Hoopes points out that in proposing an ambiguously “advanced” civilization, Hancock oddly also requests the audience view it as a society comparable to that of 19th-century Europe. Using European society as the standard metric for intellect, the arts, and “civilization” is at the heart of arguments in favor of white supremacy and European exceptionalism. Dibble similarly points to the fact that claiming such an advanced civilization actually built famed monuments suggests that a “fake civilization is responsible for monuments and the domestication of plants and animals around the world, with the implication that Indigenous people were not responsible for it.”

How did such a sham of a show get made? Is nepotism the answer? Graham Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is an executive at Netflix who works in the “Unscripted Originals” department. If you can’t get a show greenlit on its own merit, why not have your son help it along? Nepotism in the art world, in show business, in “legacy” college admissions, and in virtually every other area of our society means that access is often granted to those with more connections than merit. Although there has been intense interest devoted to the so-called nepo-babies that have pervaded the news towards the end of 2022, we might do well to do a bit more investigation into nepo-parents.

Social media plays a big part in the reception and impact of shows like Ancient Apocalypse. In 2022, former Cornell University undergraduate Angelina Nugroho published a network analysis of the Twitter discourse surrounding pseudoarchaeology. What she discovered is that such tweets “employ anti-institutional sentiment and draw on rhetorical themes in support of a historical white supremacy.” Nugroho noted that not only do pseudarchaeological theories and their diffusion detract from the ability of archaeology to provide a general understanding of the field as a scientific field, but they also cause real harm to modern Indigenous populations by undermining their past.

Can we then blame archaeologists for trying to push back against fiction masquerading as fact? As Hancock himself notes, his team was banned from filming at Serpent Mound in Ohio for attempting to falsely modify the dating of the site much earlier, to around 11,000 BCE. In fact, sacred mounds were made by two Native cultures: the Adena culture (800 BCE–100 CE) and the Fort Ancient culture (1000–1650 CE). Beyond shutting gates, other archaeologists are increasingly taking to public scholarship to push back against the broader harms of all “alternate history” shows. Whether it is actress Megan Fox’s short-lived “alternative history” show (inspired by her beliefs that the Pyramids of Giza were actually a kind of ancient power plant) or the lure of former Fear Factor and comedian Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, which Hancock appeared on: Conspiracy theories and pseudoarchaeology are a growing business.

The SAA letter points to the fact that every day, thousands of archaeologists work to speak to the public in museums, through government agencies, in university courses, on dig sites, and through their publications. Amplifying a culture of distrust around these professionals causes harm not only to them and to cultural heritage institutions, but also damages attempts at understanding and celebrating Indigenous peoples across the globe. At the end of the day, archaeologists are translators and, as Cline notes, “The number one danger is that such fantastical work, presented without supporting evidence, targets gullible audiences, who don’t know who or what to believe.”

While pseudoarchaeological shows are growing on the History network and now Netflix, the number of fact-based documentaries focused on the archaeological process and the science behind it is on the decline in the United States. As an increasing number of series get canceled across HBO, Netflix, and many other streaming services, opportunity is now at a premium. And championing pseudoarchaeology often means that the shows that center science are not given the green light. What might be the solution here? The SAA and many others see equal air time as one way forward. Cline notes that “the general public has seen only Hancock’s version in this series; a response by professional archaeologists, even of only an hour, and broadcast by Netflix, would be most welcome.” If Netflix is truly invested in presenting historical fact, it might do well to set a policy of allowing archaeologists to have their own shows with ample time to respond. Make no mistake that they will show up with trowels and real evidence in hand.

#tiktok #Ancient Apocalypse #netflix #Archaeologists #racism #archaeology #archaeological #ancient history #history #article #Hyperallergic

[jessicalprice]

you got your known Minoans and your unknown Minoans (part one)

(reposted, with edits, from Twitter)

Image: The famous “Ladies in Blue” Minoan fresco.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Minoans. Everyone loves the Minoans, right?

(If you love the Minoans, you are not going to love this series of posts.)

Part One: The Case of the Very Victorian Goddess

Let’s start with a description of the pop culture perception of the Minoans: a peaceful ancient Greek culture with sophisticated, surprisingly modernist art, and extremely sophisticated technology like running water, who were lovers of beauty and peace.

So, I read Mysteries of the Snake Goddess: Art, Desire, and the Forging of History by Kenneth Lapatin. The author focuses on the (now, I believe, pretty thoroughly debunked) Boston Goddess, a supposedly Minoan ivory figurine of a snake-handling woman. She was an absolute SENSATION when she was first displayed.

Image: The Boston Goddess

Sir Arthur Evans, the most famous archaeologist of the Minoan civilization, dubbed her the "Minoan ambassadress to the New World." She made a 1967 issue of Mademoiselle's list of "art sensations" alongside Rembrandt, Picasso, and Rodin. The Museum's monthly bulletin for Dec 1914 proclaimed her an icon of a "wonderful prehistoric civilization which, after having lain submerged, like the lost Atlantis, for three thousand years, has been brought to light again..." 

A comparison to Atlantis here is telling.

Victorian "race science" and Victorian occultism were inextricably linked, the latter demonstrating a passion for interpreting the myths of non-European cultures to reflect the ideas of the former. (Its descendants live on as Ancient Aliens theories, etc.) As archaeology became more popular and contact with ancient, sophisticated, and enduring civilizations such as those in India and China increased, white Europeans (especially the Brits) and Americans started to get uncomfortable.

So they started coming up with theories that hey, those people in the East who built all that amazing stuff, who were the "cradle of civilization," who invented the alphabet? They must have been taught by an even OLDER white civilization, now lost.

Image: The Palace of Atlantis by Lloyd K. Townsend, late 19th century, everyone is very Nordic-looking.

Hence the passion for stories about Atlantis and other lost continents. It just couldn't be true that those non-Europeans were building bigger, more sophisticated civilizations long before most (northern) European civilizations built recognizable cities at all.

That longing for proof of ancient European cultural superiority was in the air when excavations of Minoan sites began.

We must have The Oldest Masters

Now, back to the Boston Goddess. Lacey Caskey, writing for the museum, noted that the statuette's distinctive posture "seems not to have been an artistic convention, but a feature of the actual appearance of this aristocratic race."

This aristocratic race. Oof. 

Lapatin observes, in the book, that "Minoan civilization was all the rage, for it seemed to provide Europeans with not only the roots of the ‘Golden Age of Greece,’ long considered the foundation of Western culture, but also a sophisticated early society in its own right, a rival to the 'Oriental' cultures of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia--known as the cradle of civilization..." 

Victorian occultists, of course, tended to claim that their practices were derived from ancient Egyptian or Chaldean rituals. And again, even as they attempted to partake of the antiquity and sophistication of those cultures, they were also trying to prove that white people, or at least divine beings (rather than non-Europeans), built them. (It's always been a bit ironic to me that the Victorians clung to the idea of the superiority of Greece and Rome as the foundation for their ideas of the superiority of white people, while considering contemporary Greeks and Italians not fully white, but I digress.)

And lest you think that I'm hammering too hard on this point, some of the most prominent descriptions of Evans' finds praised the Minoan frescoes as "the Oldest Masters," and his work as proving the culture "bid fair rival to those of the Orient, and to give European Civilization an undreamed of antiquity." 

It's hard to overstate the degree to which the archaeological motivation here was European insecurity.

High-Bred Beauty (and I Am Not, Alas, Describing a Horse)

And why was the Boston Goddess herself such a sensation? Her "exquisite characterization of fragile beauty," her "delicate, high-bred beauty." She is "demure," and "full of resolute charm." Professor Ernest Gardner, at Yale, described her head as "recall[ing] rather the sculptures of Gothic cathedrals of the thirteenth centuries."

Or, to be more explicit and just say the quiet part out loud, her face has also been described as "Anglo-Saxon," "European-looking," "Victorian," "Edwardian," and "Parisienne."

To understand what they’re talking about, let’s do a little compare and contrast. Here are some examples of faces from figurines that, to the best of our knowledge, are actually from Crete c. 1500-1200 BCE.

And here’s a close-up of the Boston Goddess’s face:

And here’s the face of a now-probably-debunked “Minoan” goddess at the Royal Ontario Museum (read more about her here):

To cut to the chase, eventually they did radiocarbon testing on the Boston Goddess, and the ivory was found to date from between 1420 and 1635 CE. (Not BCE. CE. As in the Renaissance.) A similar figurine, the Seattle Boy God, is made from ivory that's about 500 years old. That in itself is pretty fascinating! They were using old ivory for the forgeries.

What do these proven and suspected fakes have in common? Well, among other things, their very Victorian facial features: inset eyes, small pouty mouths, delicate noses.

Spoiler for where I’m going with this: There are reasons why the Minoans were such an archeological craze, and those reasons are highly political. Because of the ways in which a very specific agenda shaped it, fakes that showed people what they wanted to see were accepted as real (and in some cases, are still sort of accepted as real), and we can't trust a lot of what we supposedly "know."

In Part 2: Bagging On Sir Arthur Evans Forever.

#archaeology #atlantis #minos #crete #minoans #arthur evans #white supremacist archaeology #snake goddess #art forgery #minoan

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

hello!! i'm sort of new to your blog and to in-depth research about irish paganism & history, so apologies if this ask is obvious or already answered on your blog, but could you explain why your blog is anti-druidry?

i understand if this is a personal thing to ask, so absolutely no pressure to divulge anything like that. i've done some research and been on a few more broad "celtic" pagan servers before and haven't heard any specific info about druidry in a negative light aside from the general "use your discernment and double check things" stuff. is there something i'm missing? (i appreciate the time you take to answer this, if you do. :} thank you)

Many druidic organizations have TERFs and White Supremacists on their recommended reading lists. They have lengthy histories of covering up sexual abuse within the organization. A good number of them actively prey on young people looking for their money for "coursework" (and by young people I mean as young as 13).

Not to mention that many of them try to push the idea of a pan-Celtic religion which is not just ahistoric but also kinda serves as this colonial mindset where the Celtic Nations aren't distinct from one another and treats them all as one entity regardless of historic and cultural differences.

And of course the vast majority of the history of druids that their organizations are based on is literally MADE UP. It's all fake. And several organizations can trace their origins directly to notorious antiquity forgers. And many of the resources they put out are just someone's UPG with baseless historical claims that don't hold up to the archaeological and written historical record.

[oleworm]

I've been online for many years and I don't think I've seen a neopagan acknowledge that what is known today as neopaganism is significantly though not entirely rooted in the white supremacist rejection of Christianity for having roots in Judaism and being theoretically egalitarian, as well as their ideological need to create a religion that was native as opposed to foreign, one that was believed to be traditional (in reality created mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries) and thus, not in contradiction to the soul or spirit of the tribe or race.

Like, that's a significant reason that neopaganism exists today. It goes beyond archaeology and folkloric studies and trying to learn more about your past, though these approaches also can be and have been tainted by racism. It is true that for many people the draw of neopaganism has been and still is that they can use it to replace Christianity for being too Jewish and not racist enough.

[irish-dress-history]

Intro post:

My name is Deidre (she/her). I’m an American historical costumer whose ancestry is a mix of Irish Gaelic, Scotch-Irish (aka Ulster Scots), English, Scottish, and a few other things. I have a bachelor’s degree in Anthropology and a few graduate credits in Archaeology, none of which is particularly related to Irish dress history, but it did teach me something about doing research.

I have never been to Ireland, and I do not speak Irish. (Sadly, I don’t have the money to go.) American schools are worse than useless when it comes to teaching Irish history. I am trying to teach myself the necessary vocabulary and history to understand Irish dress history; I apologize in advance if I screw up.

White supremacists are not welcome here.

#personal

[spocktheestallion]

fucking hate history sensationalists. “the late bronze age COLLAPSE was CRAZY cities BURNED a mysterious SEA PEOPLE appeared economies COLLAPSED everywhere we lost ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE it’s so MYSTERIOUS there’s NO EXPLANATION”

actually it was a highly interconnected maritime region. an unlucky mix of poorly timed natural disasters and natural shortages gave rise to unrest which led to societal change and uprooting of old governmental systems in some areas, which likely also caused widespread economic collapse and displacement as it was (again) a pretty interconnected maritime trade economy in most of the eastern mediterranean. at the same time the ‘sea peoples’ appeared many of the warlike mycenaeans would’ve been displaced as the old king system completely disappeared and likely turned to mercenary work on naval vessels and just took to pillaging bc that’s what they were good at. also the egyptian descriptions of sea peoples match descriptions of mycenaeans. also for a long time we assumed the bronze age collapse was crazy and sudden and disastrous bc we hadn’t found much stuff but as we continue to excavate and expand our archaeological record it turns out it was more of a slow economic and political decline that wasn’t likely wasn’t helped by natural disasters in certain areas. i mean the bronze age collapse and theories surrounding it and just how bad it actually was are certainly contested by scholars today and people have different opinions, but it was likely a combination of a lot of factors over time.

it’s just always these sensational history channel ass pseudo-archaeological theories that are the front runners to racist dumbass “ancient aliens” or weird white supremacist bullshit.

don’t fall for ppl that try to lead you into history with “it’s a GREAT MYSTERY it’s UNEXPLAINABLE they MOVED BIG ROCKS WITHOUT CRANES” as though levers and basic physics didn’t exist back then. these are literally just con artists capitalizing on assumptions that ancient people (especially those of color) were stupid and also that their audience has only ever learned about history through tomb raider and indiana jones.

and then when actual archaeologists with degrees try to teach or talk about things they get met with “ACTUALLY ur wrong bc i watched a documentary by Mr. Charlatan Hack about how mermaids built the pyramids bc they’re shaped funny” or some bullshit like that

[brightclothesforwinter]

On the exceeding dubiousness of the use of the term 'Anglo-Saxon' as an identifier for a people rather than a time period in the context of modern historical understanding.

Drawn, somewhat ironically, and largely because it was on my desk, from the prologue of Susan Oosthuizen's The Anglo-Saxon Fenland, which I really must finish reading. (There she uses the term for the period approx 400-1100).

To paraphrase, because it's long:

Some people apparently arrived in Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries according to some surviving post-Roman documents

Small or large numbers? That's not clear.

Did not share common cultural background or language

Origins "lay across a wide geographic region - Francia, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, what is now Germany, north and west Africa, southern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean" [Oosthuizen]

No evidence of common ethnic identity

Modern archaeological evidence suggests any newcomers integrated into existing society

Her references, somewhat abbreviated:

Pohl, W. (1997) 'Ethnic names and identities in the British Isles: A comparative perspective'

Geary, P (2002) The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe

Oosthuizen, S (2016) 'Review article: Recognising and moving on from a failed paradigm: The case of agricultural landscapes in Anglo-Saxon England c.400-800'

My addition (so, come for me and not the Professor if you've gotta) - there is, of course, a group of people who have a vested interest in continuing to believe in the existence of a culturally distinct body of people, in a history of violent conquest, in a fitting setting for an *ahem* borrowed myth-cycle, in an improbable millienia-and-a-half cultural and genetic continuity with the present. As someone with a particular interest in this period of history (partly for writing-related purposes!) my approach to the inevitable white supremacists on the internet is 'block and move on'.

You know what I think? I think people in the 5th and 6th centuries moved around as people always have; for trade, for economic reasons, for love, because they just really wanted to put a few hundred miles between themselves and their bloody relatives. People settled in new places and kept some things from the old home, adopted some things from the new, fell in love and married and had children and grew old in the great big melting pot of life. Probably having strained relationships with their mothers and complicated yearning feelings about the languages they were losing and the stories of the old country they'd maybe never seen. Just - diaspora people doing diaspora things, all the way back through time.

#look at least I had my rant on my own post and not in someone else's comments (which nearly happened)