Anthropologists and geologists from the Austral Scientific Research Centre have discovered the body of an adult who lived on the north coast of Tierra del Fuego (Argentina) 4,000 years ago. [more...] 'The body is very well preserved, totally articulate, with complete denture,' said anthropologist Monica Saleme. The skeleton, found beneath a 3,900-year-old 'conchero' (shell pit), may be the oldest so far discovered in the region. Shell middens of this type are quite common and indicate the sites of temporary habitations where hunter-gatherers would settle for several months at a time to feed on molluscs and other sea foods, and take time to make implements. The dating corresponds to the time of the world's highest sea levels - the burial is now almost 3,000 meters from the present coastline. The 1.7m body was buried in the foetal position on its right side, with the left hand under the head and knees close to the chest. Tools and utensils dating back 12,600 years and thought to have been produced by the selk-nam ona tribe have been found in Tierra del Fuego, but no human remains from so early a date. 'We can't say if [the skeleton] belongs to a selk-nam, although they inhabited the area,' says Saleme. The remains have now been taken to the main ASRC Cadic laboratory for further examination and DNA tests. Researchers are interested in the different migrations into Tierra del Fuego during the Holocene and the DNA tests will determine the body's migratory origin.

Source: MercoPress (17 March 2004) Via Sauseschritt

... Link (0 comments) ... Comment

Vernant, our fellow student currently for a year at the London School of Economics, provided us a thoughtful article about capitalism, and why he believes that we should in future accept it partly, and partly not.

To call for a 21th century to be the era of "pure capitalism" is not only insipid, but also immoral.

Proud capitalists abound at the LSE in these days: What is most obscene about that is that they try to bring two apparently very odd things together: an economic system which subsumes everything beneath its basic imperative of making profit, and morality. Those who are sceptical about capitalism are depicted as dumb defenders of state planning. To the contrary, only capitalism should be properly moral, according to these staunch believers. Because only in a capitalist system the individual is free - free to think, free to do, and free to exploit, one might add. To exploit his peers, the other free individuals, and nature, corresponding to the free decisions he has taken in his mind. What is missing in those not very penetrative accounts is a closer look at what morality means: [...read more]for fatuous defenders of capitalism it is nothing more than individual freedom. But what about the others? Isn?t it the case that morality is really about relationships between people? What are we on if somebody abuses the freedom he enjoys only for his own piggishness? Let?s look what other reasons there might be to claim that capitalism is a moral thing: It is said to be against racism. Because racism doesn?t pay nowadays. If it would pay, capitalists would have no problem being racists whatsoever. Take Henry Ford, a respectable capitalist in my view. He was known for his anti-Semitism. But it didn?t impede him earning a fortune and changing an entire society. In our time, no major capitalist could take publicly a racist position, and continue to amass money. So he will deliberately avoid to discriminate too bluntly - not because of any morals, but because of grabby self-interest. Or take sexism, for that matter: female producers and consumers are rather ok for capitalists. Commodification of the female body too. Far from being moral, capitalism has continuously torn apart and destroyed every moral idea, as soon as it was incommensurate with making money. What strikes me most is that proud capitalists often mention the poor, whose poverty is seemingly caused by their own lack of talents. They depend on the rich, but any kind of redistribution is restoring communist spectres. Which is a contradiction in itself: The poor are reliant on the wealthy, but the fortune of the latter should be protected. Where should then any sources for the poor come from? What else should help except for redistribution? Our capitalists only want to assure that no money is stolen from the wealthy - they are the most productive, after all. The poor can remain in their miserable condition, this shall be the most appropriate incentive for them to struggle for progress. Additionally, when they are continuously watching others consuming champagne, diamonds and supermodels, they should have even more stimulus to become more productive. That conspicuous consumption might play a role in perpetuating outrageous inequalities is not mentioned. Gigantic amounts of money could be used for redistribution, instead of dissipation. Yes, this should appeal to a very basic instinct: envy. But I also bet on something which is lacking in the moral philosophy of pure capitalism: social justice. I would argue, however, that capitalism as an encompassing system has a morality, namely a split one. This morality consists of two opposed ideologies: total self-interest and the total gift. Some are self-interested, rational maximizers of their utility - some even unapologetically so. Others give free and care for their neighbours, moved by compassion. But actually most of us do both, and try to reconcile both. The difference is that "pure" capitalists submit totally to their self-interest, and give charities only when it fancies them. Whereas others would find it more reasonable to have redistribution institutionalized. Up to the present capitalists have been presented frequently as greedy and avaricious. And rightly so. A world reigned by pure capitalism is a quite gloomy and morbid illusion. In the absense of state interventions, the capitalist market becomes a "Satanic Mill," in Karl Polanyi?s words, that erodes the social foundations of its own existence. Neither can one deny the efficiency of markets in certain respects. But none of the extremes is good. The middle way would be the better: to use capitalism and its effectiveness, and combine it with ethical commitment and thus, redistribution.

... Link (2 comments) ... Comment

Andre Gingrich, professor in Vienna, delivered a paper at the LSE's research seminar last week on German anthropologists under Hitler and their interaction with british colleagues. After the marginalization of several other schools of thought, like Materialism, Culture Morphology, and 'theological' culture circle theory, two schools remained in German anthropology, and were compatible with Nazi ideology, according to Gingrich: Functionalism (Thurnwald, Muehlmann, Fürer-Haimendort, Wagner) and 'secular' culture history (Krickeberg, Reche - and: Hermann Baumann. The founder of Munich's institute for ethnology did not figure prominently in the presentation, as Gingrich focused on the biographies of Fürer-Haimendort and Wagner, who are indeed very interesting figures. But it was for the first time I heard about the potential problems with Baumann's major work "Die Völker und Kulturen Afrikas". Gingrich's paper is going to be published in a book edited by him and Sydel Silverman. Here is an Interview with Gingrich on Anthropology and Colonialism, where he tells us that Talal Asad's father was a Wiener called Leo Weiss.

... Link (1 comment) ... Comment