YES @sammysdewysensitiveeyes! 100%!!
While weâre on that, the story about the leatherworker above is also entirely apocryphal â which is actually proven in the article linked to the entirely fictional paragraph above. Iâve said it before and Iâll say it again:
This claim that âthey couldnât figure out what they were for the life of them. Until, of course, they showed it to a traditional leatherworkerâ and all about her taking one look at it yadda yadda isâŠentirely unsubstantiated.
The story makes no sense if you pause to think about it: itâs new to discover this tool from this long ago. But, if weâre still using them today, then people were probably still using them throughout history from that time until today. So is the idea supposed to be that anthropologists have just been encountering this tool from all different time periods, up to and including the modern day, and justâŠ.never bothered to figure out what it was? Until they found a REALLY old one and were like, well, better get on this now? Of course not!
These anthropologists were able to identify the use of this tool, because they have experience, as anthropologists, studying tools. In fact, the risk that they might not have been able to identify this tool was not because they were anthropologists, but because they were anthropologists who studied a time period from which these tools had not previously been discovered. However, because they had experience with other time periods, AS ANTHROPOLOGISTS, they were able to identify this tool.
Here is a quote from that article (unsurprisingly, it does not support the âgosh wow!â conversation in the original post):
âThe first three found were fragments less than a few centimeters long and might not have been recognized without experience working with later period bone tools. It is not something normally looked for in this time period. âHowever, when you put these small fragments together and compare them with finds from later sites, the pattern in them is clear,â comments McPherron. âThen last summer we found a larger, more complete tool that is unmistakably a lissoir, like those we find in later, modern human sites or even in leather workshops today.â â
To repeat: the reason these anthropologists might not have recognized this tool is not because itâs new to anthropology, or because all anthropologists have just been like ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ every time they found it. Itâs because they âmight not have been recognized without experience working with later period bone toolsâ because âitâs not something normally looked for in this time period.â Happily, these anthropologists had that experience! However, anthropology as a field has long been familiar with these tools â because âwe find [them] in later, modern human sites or even leather workshops today.â Unlike the fake!anthropologist from this post, the real anthropologists, named Marie Soressi and Shannon McPherron, were not shocked that a modern leatherworker was still using these tools â because they knew that already! What they didnât know was that Neandertals also used that tool, so long ago.
Iâll let them share a little more about their thoughts on this discovery:
âLissoirs like these are a great tool for working leather, so much so that 50 thousand years after Neandertals made these, I was able to purchase a new one on the Internet from a site selling tools for traditional crafts,â says Soressi. âIt shows that this tool was so efficient that it had been maintained through time with almost no change. It might be one or perhaps even the only heritage from Neandertal times that our society is still using today.â
This apocryphal story crediting our fictional she/her leatherworker reinforces the idea that anthropologists and other scholars are a bunch of elites who know nothing about the real world and the lives of people outside the ivory tower, including the people they study. This ends up both erasing the tremendous amount of knowledge that people in these fields hold (I find giving the fictional leatherworker she/her pronouns to be an interesting twist, given that itâs erasing the contributions of the real woman working as an anthropologist who co-made this discovery), and distracting from the real issues of racism, sexism, and exclusion that have shaped these fields and affect the increasingly diverse people working in them today. These issues are real, and the harms that the field of anthropology has and does perpetuate are real, and are best addressed honestly.
Instead of creating parables that scholars know nothing, letâs celebrate what human curiosity has been able to discover about our past; learn about and work to repair the real (not apocryphal) harms perpetuated in anthropology and academia; continue to make academia more inclusive of people with various expertise, gender, race, ethnicity, prior knowledge, and ways of knowing about the past; value multiple types of expertise both in and outside of the academy; and celebrate what is most exciting about this discovery:
not that anthropologists are all ignorant, but that our ancient ancestors were wiser and more creative than we knew, and gifted us this tool so long ago.
