4 ms·

It's always annoying to see identity politics injected into hard sciences: > Archaeologists—predominantly male—gave ancient ages names like “Iron” and “Bronze,

It's always annoying to see identity politics injected into hard sciences: > Archaeologists—predominantly male—gave ancient ages names like “Iron” and “Bronze,” rather than “Pottery” or “Flax.” Entire cultures are named after their pottery. For example, there are the "corded ware culture" and "bell beaker culture." Archaeologists pay very close attention to material culture (including more feminine items like jewelry). Maybe - just maybe - it's harder to know about fabrics than metals because the former degrade more quickly than the latter. Or we could just blame it on men. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Beaker_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Beaker_culture

SamBam 7y ago
I think it's important to acknowledge the biases of the scientists or researchers that study first-hand materials. They absolutely affect the research and conclusions they produce and affect how the broader public understand history and science. That said, you are absolutely right in the particulars here. Pottery is extremely important to our understanding of human history -- that was an absurd mistake in the article, since it is so important -- and it makes sense that fabrics have been less important simply because there is much less evidence of the particulars of it. -- On an unrelated note, I love flax and its many uses. I love that when we eat it as seed we call it "flax seed," when we use it as cooking oil we call it "flax oil," when we use it as a protective finish we call it "linseed oil," when we make it into cloth we call it "linen," and when we make it into flooring we call it "linoleum." Let me know if I missed others.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
To be fair, studies like history and archaeology are anything but hard sciences. One of the history courses I took during my degree was dedicated entirely to looking at historical texts and trying to see the biases of the historian who wrote them. There's always reason to look for bias in primary sources and secondary sources and then try and learn from them. Re-framing what we know in different lights definitely has value. All that being said, it does feel like a weird jab to throw in the male bit at the beginning. But that's who was studying this at one time, and realizing that and being open to re-framing doesn't hurt.
klyrs 7y ago
I know a few female archaeologists. They've uniformly experienced sexism, ridicule, scorn, and harassment for being women. The hard sciences are steeped in identity politics, and have been as long as there have been hard sciences. God forbid somebody actually talk about the assumptions and biases that result.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Archaeology is not usually considered part of the "hard" sciences - depending on whom you ask, it's either among the "soft" or the "social" sciences.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Won't debate you on that. I'm a mathematician. IMNSHO, physics is a soft science because they accept 5-sigma experimental results as "proof." My parent made the claim that "identity politics" are invading archaeology, and my point is that "identity politics" have always been there -- it's no longer acceptable to explicitly forbid women from the sciences, but that doesn't mean that implicit gatekeeping isn't happening.
    - cdirkx 7y ago
      But then do you consider mathematics a science?
      - klyrs 7y ago
        I do! Mostly. It's a little complicated. Read the Mathematics page on wikipedia, and you'll find I'm in good company. My strong, loosely held, opinion is that rigorous mathematics is the hardest of sciences. Where mathematicians reject computer proofs over all-human proofs, I balk at their lack of rigor and consider their stance unscientific. Mathematics is one of the only sciences that finds absolute ground truth: we state axioms, and elaborate proofs based entirely upon those axioms. Axioms are assumptions, and we freely acknowledge that results are only guaranteed to hold if the axioms are satisfied. Logicians are seen as philosophers, but I hold them as equals. There's a perspective that "science" deals purely with the natural world, and mathematicians aren't bothered by the surreality of their axioms. The way I see it is, these are truths that can extend beyond even our universe, should anything more exist. And occasionally, pure mathematical results come hundreds of years before natural observations require them -- what looks absurdly inapplicable now might not in a few generations.
paganel 7y ago
Not sure why you're getting down-voted, because you're totally right. I'd add the fibulae to the list of "female" archaeological artifacts closely studied by, well, archeologists. For example the history of late 6th - early 7th century Slavs in South-Eastern Europe is mostly "deduced" by studying women-worn fibulae like those presented in articles like this [1] [1] https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=639506 https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=639506
cardiffspaceman 7y ago
So here's a question about flax, and other things. It seems like there is a technological progression in clothing from "I take the unprocessed hides from the animals I kill or the leaves and vines around me and just wear them" to "I tan hides to make leather" to "I grow flax or cotton to make fibers and fabric" Actual question: Do these technologies correspond to lengthy time frames in large areas in such a way that it could be useful to identify a "Leather Age/Culture" or "Plant fiber Age/Culture"?
- Merrill 7y ago
  Sewing is a vital technology, since only with sewn, multi-layer clothing was cold-intolerant Homo sapiens able to colonize the middle and upper latitudes of the Eurasian continent during the last Ice Age. In the referenced article, it mentions needles from about 35,000 years ago. Presumably the earliest garments were furs stitched with sinew threads, but plant fiber thread from 34,000 has been found in Georgia. The archaeological problem is that bone needles and organic fibers do not endure to the present like stone and copper.
dang 7y ago
Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We don't need yet another gender flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The specific information in your comment is good. If you dropped the first sentence, the last sentence, and the snark ("Maybe - just maybe"), your comment would be a much better contribution to HN.
- calvinmorrison 7y ago
  "maybe don't post shitty popsci articles about how men are evil" - me, 2019
  - dang 7y ago
    That's not a fair description of the article, but for fun, let's suppose it were. Your argument doesn't wash. If someone vandalizes your house or (let's say) a city park, that doesn't make it ok for someone else to vandalize.
    - calvinmorrison 7y ago
      You're right, I flagellate myself at the God (her/she) of militant feminists. Please don't torpedo my career or sue me for hate speech

SamBam 7y ago

I think it's important to acknowledge the biases of the scientists or researchers that study first-hand materials. They absolutely affect the research and conclusions they produce and affect how the broader public understand history and science. That said, you are absolutely right in the particulars here. Pottery is extremely important to our understanding of human history -- that was an absurd mistake in the article, since it is so important -- and it makes sense that fabrics have been less important simply because there is much less evidence of the particulars of it. -- On an unrelated note, I love flax and its many uses. I love that when we eat it as seed we call it "flax seed," when we use it as cooking oil we call it "flax oil," when we use it as a protective finish we call it "linseed oil," when we make it into cloth we call it "linen," and when we make it into flooring we call it "linoleum." Let me know if I missed others.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

To be fair, studies like history and archaeology are anything but hard sciences. One of the history courses I took during my degree was dedicated entirely to looking at historical texts and trying to see the biases of the historian who wrote them. There's always reason to look for bias in primary sources and secondary sources and then try and learn from them. Re-framing what we know in different lights definitely has value. All that being said, it does feel like a weird jab to throw in the male bit at the beginning. But that's who was studying this at one time, and realizing that and being open to re-framing doesn't hurt.

klyrs 7y ago

I know a few female archaeologists. They've uniformly experienced sexism, ridicule, scorn, and harassment for being women. The hard sciences are steeped in identity politics, and have been as long as there have been hard sciences. God forbid somebody actually talk about the assumptions and biases that result.

zozbot234 7y ago
Archaeology is not usually considered part of the "hard" sciences - depending on whom you ask, it's either among the "soft" or the "social" sciences.
- klyrs 7y ago
  Won't debate you on that. I'm a mathematician. IMNSHO, physics is a soft science because they accept 5-sigma experimental results as "proof." My parent made the claim that "identity politics" are invading archaeology, and my point is that "identity politics" have always been there -- it's no longer acceptable to explicitly forbid women from the sciences, but that doesn't mean that implicit gatekeeping isn't happening.
  - cdirkx 7y ago
    But then do you consider mathematics a science?
    - klyrs 7y ago
      I do! Mostly. It's a little complicated. Read the Mathematics page on wikipedia, and you'll find I'm in good company. My strong, loosely held, opinion is that rigorous mathematics is the hardest of sciences. Where mathematicians reject computer proofs over all-human proofs, I balk at their lack of rigor and consider their stance unscientific. Mathematics is one of the only sciences that finds absolute ground truth: we state axioms, and elaborate proofs based entirely upon those axioms. Axioms are assumptions, and we freely acknowledge that results are only guaranteed to hold if the axioms are satisfied. Logicians are seen as philosophers, but I hold them as equals. There's a perspective that "science" deals purely with the natural world, and mathematicians aren't bothered by the surreality of their axioms. The way I see it is, these are truths that can extend beyond even our universe, should anything more exist. And occasionally, pure mathematical results come hundreds of years before natural observations require them -- what looks absurdly inapplicable now might not in a few generations.

paganel 7y ago

Not sure why you're getting down-voted, because you're totally right. I'd add the fibulae to the list of "female" archaeological artifacts closely studied by, well, archeologists. For example the history of late 6th - early 7th century Slavs in South-Eastern Europe is mostly "deduced" by studying women-worn fibulae like those presented in articles like this [1] [1] https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=639506 https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=639506

cardiffspaceman 7y ago

So here's a question about flax, and other things. It seems like there is a technological progression in clothing from "I take the unprocessed hides from the animals I kill or the leaves and vines around me and just wear them" to "I tan hides to make leather" to "I grow flax or cotton to make fibers and fabric" Actual question: Do these technologies correspond to lengthy time frames in large areas in such a way that it could be useful to identify a "Leather Age/Culture" or "Plant fiber Age/Culture"?

Merrill 7y ago
Sewing is a vital technology, since only with sewn, multi-layer clothing was cold-intolerant Homo sapiens able to colonize the middle and upper latitudes of the Eurasian continent during the last Ice Age. In the referenced article, it mentions needles from about 35,000 years ago. Presumably the earliest garments were furs stitched with sinew threads, but plant fiber thread from 34,000 has been found in Georgia. The archaeological problem is that bone needles and organic fibers do not endure to the present like stone and copper.

dang 7y ago

Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We don't need yet another gender flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The specific information in your comment is good. If you dropped the first sentence, the last sentence, and the snark ("Maybe - just maybe"), your comment would be a much better contribution to HN.

calvinmorrison 7y ago
"maybe don't post shitty popsci articles about how men are evil" - me, 2019
- dang 7y ago
  That's not a fair description of the article, but for fun, let's suppose it were. Your argument doesn't wash. If someone vandalizes your house or (let's say) a city park, that doesn't make it ok for someone else to vandalize.
  - calvinmorrison 7y ago
    You're right, I flagellate myself at the God (her/she) of militant feminists. Please don't torpedo my career or sue me for hate speech