In this week's blog I'd like to offer for your consideration the first of a set of three very short pieces from the journal Nature. Each of these three articles deals with issues related to epistemology in the context of scientific discourse, and I believe that they may be of much interest to the enquiring anthropologist. Tell me if I'm correct.The first article is a commentary piece from January 2004 entitled "Is a picture worth 1000 words?" and it deals with the proper place of illustration in scientific literature. Drawing upon the historical record of scientific illustration from Galileo to nanotechnology, the author argues for the importance of accurate and realistic illustrations, but also warns of the dangers that accompany the new technologies in scientific illustration and the ease with which digital illustrations can be modified and manipulated. What are the pitfalls of scientific illustration in our 21st century world of science, and do they also apply to anthropology? What are some of the unique ways (positive and negative) in which illustrations can impact anthropological research and writing? Rather than outright fraud, the author suggests that we need to be careful to insure that our images and illustrations are based in reality and don't imply interpretations that are not supported by our data.
Do any of these concerns seem relevant with respect to the kinds of fossil reconstructions that so often accompany paleoanthropological or archaeological finds? What are your reactions to this famous image based on the remains found at the African Plio-Pleistocene site known as Laetoli in Tanzania? Can you find other images or reconstructions that have been used by paleoanthropologists or archaeologists that tell a narrative or perhaps imply more than the data actually support?
When reading this article all I could think about were some of the first Neanderthal images that were used to portray Neanderthals as dim-witted among other things. Then I looked at the image for this blog, the “creation” of the Laetoli footprints that has animals in the background, etc. These images had a profound effect on how Neanderthals and the Laetoli footprints were and in many cases still are viewed. The National Geographic-type reconstructions of early hominids are another example. I have a big problem with the NatGeo reconstructions as they are put out there as fact. If they want people can and obviously do create images portraying what they want you to see. If an image is being published as a scientific illustration, then there should be detailed captions explaining the image, especially any manipulations or artistic license that was taken. Manipulated images lead to manipulated interpretations. The interpretations then lead to skewed and biased research.
ReplyDeleteI think these images are representative of how our views of anthropological thought evolve. No one will get it right the first time. The problem arises when the image is politicized and used for reasons other than anthropology.
ReplyDeleteOk, but tell me what is the narrative that is being told in this particular Laetoli image???
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa's comment about the need for a caption or at least an explanation as to how much the image has been enhanced. How do we know it is an accurte representation or what the author/illustrator was thinking when he/she was doctoring the image. All I can think of is how much Andy changed those slides in photoshop two weeks ago. Without his commentary you would have thought that those religious medallions were in pristine condition. Technology today can do amazing things. It can even make futuristic things look like they are obtainable now.
ReplyDeletePatrick and I had a conversation about the ethical use of photoshop to enhance, modify or change and image to better suit aesethic qualities, or the science you want it to display so to speak. We agreed that modifying an image is a slippery slope. I really agree with the sentiment that " pictures must not be divorced from science and scientific plausibility."
ReplyDeleteThe pitfalls of scientific illustration are hugely relevant to anthropology. Images of bones, artifacts, etc. are often taken in the field and then doctored so to speak. This doctoring might make the images look more presentable in a paper but we can't forget the context and appearance of the artifacts originally.
I have always had a problem with the Laetoli image, even before I knew exactly why. At first it simply upset me because there is NO possible way that we could ever scientifically extract this interpretation of events from the actual footprints. After writing some papers on the role of gender, however, I have figured out why it irritated me so much in the first place. From a set of footprints in volcanic ash, we have deduced that the spear-toting man was walking point to insure the safety of the female and baby. Furthermore, if I remember correctly there was no evidence for a baby in the first place. The two individuals could have traversed this area many hours apart from each other. This picture is a classic example of present-day anthropologists examining that past through the sociopolitical lens of the present.
ReplyDeleteThis is way off the subject but I felt everyone should know. Geronimo is currently under a NAGPRA review as well as the Skull and Bones society who supposedly stole his skull.
ReplyDeleteI have always had a major issue with the images in some anthropology textbooks. I was discussing this issue with Erin the grad student I TA with becasue some of the illustration in the textbook are less then accurate. In fact they are a little cartoony and can be miss leading. The laetoli footpritns the image is ridulous I can't even began to explain what's wrong with the assumptions in it.
ReplyDeleteVictoria, probe a bit deeper and try to articulate your concerns about this or some of the other images from textbooks that you have issues with.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I think you've hit upon a good part of the problem with images like the one from Laetoli. Can someone probe even deeper into the other cultural things that this image implies that may not be based on any real evidence?
Jason, what's the peanut butter story you allude to? Speaking of serendipitous scientific results, anyone know the story of how VIAGRA was discovered? Check it out and report back here.
Anthony, the inclusion of the baby has been explained by the artist or someone involved in the work as based on the fact that the second set of footprints are smaller than the first (sexual dimorphism...female) and that the orientation of the footprints are a bit splayed outward, sugesting that this individual was burdened with something heavy (like a baby). Pretty skimpy evidence IMHO.
ReplyDelete