Best. Science. Fiction. Show. Ever.
"The Expanse" is the best vision I've ever seen of a space-faring future that may be just a few generations away.
26 February, 2021
Credit: "The Expanse" / Syfy
- Want three reasons why that headline is justified? Characters and acting, universe building, and science.
- For those who don't know, "The Expanse" is a series that's run on SyFy and Amazon Prime set about 200 years in the future in a mostly settled solar system with three waring factions: Earth, Mars, and Belters.
- No other show I know of manages to use real science so adeptly in the service of its story and its grand universe building.
<div><br></div>
<p>Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: <em>Best science fiction show ever. </em>That is a pretty audacious claim and it means I've got some explaining to do. But with 58.5 years of nerdom behind me, including years of watching "Star Trek", "UFO", "Space 1999", "Battlestar Galactica" (the original one that sucked except for the special effects), "Stargate", "The X-Files", "Farscape", "Battlestar Galactica" (the new one that didn't suck) and Firefly I have seen a thing or two concerning science fiction on TV. That's why I'm here ready to stand my ground and proclaim for all nerdom to hear…</p>
<p>"<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MMJTJSH" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Expanse</a>" is the greatest science fiction TV show ever. EVER!</p>
<p>For those of you who don't know, "The Expanse" is a series that's run on SyFy and Amazon Prime set about 200 years in the future in a mostly settled solar system (slight spoiler alerts follow). Based on an <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/series/56399-the-expanse" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amazing book series</a> by <a href="https://twitter.com/AbrahamHanover" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SA Corey</a>, in this future there are three major political factions in constant conflict with each other. First, there is Earth which remains powerful but is stretched thin by climate change and overpopulation. Then there is Mars, a former colony of Earth, that's now an independent militaristic republic whose technology generally outpaces that of humanity's homeworld. The final faction is "The Belt" which refers to the asteroids and moons of the giant planets. Belters are resource extractors, and they are the oppressed underclass. After generations living on ships and in low-gravity environments, their bodies have changed, making it impossible for many of them to handle the crush of gravity on the inner planets. </p>
<p>The story begins with all three factions at each other's throats. Mars and Earth are in the midst of a long cold war that, occasionally, turns <a href="https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Vesta_Blockade" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hot</a>. What Earth and Mars have in common, however, is keeping their boot on the neck of the Belters who are, themselves, poised for bloody rebellion. This simmering political, social and military conflict would be enough for a hundred episodes but it's into this pile of dynamite "The Expanse" drops an alien artifact that changes everything and propels the narrative.</p><p>Now, the individual elements in what I described above are not really that original. You can find many versions of them in many TV shows across many decades. So, what does "The Expanse" do with these elements that makes it so special? For me the excellence of the show manifests in three distinct ways: characters and acting; universe building; science.</p>
<blockquote>The level of attempted scientific realism in the show is wonderful, extending even to little details like how whiskey spirals out of its bottle due to the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coriolis effect</a> when poured on a rotating space station.</blockquote>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc0OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODc0NzIyMn0.h3G9wanrr1lmk3itUpVAyj-fw_iuUkUvyFa7Oum86-M/img.jpg?width=980" id="d6dcc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2e1eacc6a1afa879c5c199aec589c06b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1000" data-height="200" /><p>Let's start with characters and acting. No matter how good your science fiction ideas may be, you have to tell your stories through actors pretending to be characters interacting with each other. By its nature, science fiction shows can ask a lot of actors. They have to stare at green screens, pretending to be in awe of an alien mothership that won't get added till post-production CGI; or they dangle from wires emoting through a screen set in the weightlessness of space. It takes serious acting chops to maintain the gravity (or levity) that makes it all believable or better yet <em>relatable</em>. That's why the depth of performances in <em>The Expanse</em> is its best surprise. The recent season, for example, had actor <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4625680/" target="_blank">Dominique Tipper</a> killing it across three episodes as Belter engineer Naomi Nagata. Nagata is caught alone on a booby-trapped ship, exhausting herself trying to signal her friends to <em>not</em> attempt a rescue. It's a solo performance reminiscent of Tom Hanks' great work in "Castaway".<br></p><br>Across the seasons, other actors have also filled out their characters with an empathy that's comparable to anything else in any other genre on TV. <a href="https://twitter.com/ThomasJane" target="_blank">Thomas Jane's</a> detective Josephus Miller was an epic noir depiction of a man broken by circumstance but still moving towards something better. <a href="https://twitter.com/SAghdashloo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shohreh Aghdashloo's</a> foul-mouthed UN leader Chrisjen Avasarala is a skilled politician who will kick your ass and save your world at the same time. And, perhaps best of all, is <a href="https://twitter.com/weschatham" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wes Chatham</a>'s Amos Burton. Born in the worst the streets can offer he became a killer then escaped to become a spaceship mechanic. Chatham plays Burton as simultaneously dangerous, kind, and slightly bewildered, always wanting to do the right thing if he just knew what that was. And don't even get me started on how good <a href="https://twitter.com/CaraGeeeee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cara Gee</a> is as Belter captain Camina Drummer.
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NTgzOTgwMX0.7RtmTVSHBVO7lpWbIa3qx9bmpBi_qG58b6J_L-nGO0s/img.jpg?width=980" id="e8c48" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2b0f8459f35eb2073d4ed2347f667a6d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1000" data-height="200" /><p>Next, we come to what's called 'universe building' in science fiction. All the great acting needs a fully fleshed out, lived-in world to ground it. How, for example, do the trams work on a hollowed out, spinning asteroid like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)" target="_blank">Ceres</a> that's used as a space settlement? This isn't a physics question. Instead, it means if you arrived on Ceres, where would you find the tram station? What do the maps look like that would help you get around? These are the kind of details that fall both to the writers and the art department. Getting these details wrong means the world your show inhabits will either look cheesy or, worse, sterile, as if all your expensive sets never had anyone live in them.</p>
<p>Happily, everything in "The Expanse" looks lived in. Everything looks like part of an organic whole. The sets and scenes give us a world built by humans for human purposes even if it's a city built into the side of a Martian cliff. From visions of New York City under siege from climate change to the claustrophobic interiors of Belter ships (all webbing, ductwork and grimy computer screens), the universe of "The Expanse" is endlessly rich, interesting, and believable (<a href="https://twitter.com/donttrythis" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Adam Savage</a> has a great set of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ICDTv3VJA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">videos</a> on production design in "The Expanse").</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDEyNDg2Nn0.b7YJNl900W-P531IJDBt-a3sxieX3VdjuyhOVJU19PY/img.jpg?width=980" id="90aec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7630d221c2eadd637411ac089fb7c652" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1000" data-height="200" /><p>Finally, we come to the science, because, after all, this is science fiction. I am not one who demands that my science fiction always get the science right. What matters is that the writers create a self-consistent universe where whatever "science" is invoked remains constant as constraints imposed to provide obstacles and make the story work. But, to my joy, for the most part the "science" used in "The Expanse" is the science I teach in my <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/how-real-world-science-sets-expanse-apart-other-sci-fi-shows" target="_blank">physics</a> classes. For example, there is no imaginary "artificial gravity" babble. Instead, there is thrust gravity when the engines are on, accelerating spaceships. There is also spin gravity when you're on the inside of something rotating. Other than that, you are "on the float." Just like what will happen in real spaceships and space stations in the future.</p>
<p>The level of attempted scientific realism in the show is wonderful, extending even to little details like how whiskey spirals out of its bottle due to the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coriolis effect</a> when poured on a rotating space station. Most importantly, the writers use the real physics real people will really encounter in real space travel as a kind of extra character in the show. During space battles, as ships roll and pivot, Newton's first law (inertia) means unsecured tools are sent flying across the cabin. That makes them dangerous projectiles our brave heroes must dodge while fighting evil and advancing the storyline. It all makes my physicist's heart weep in gratitude.</p>
<p>Of course, not all the science in "The Expanse" is valid or accurate or correct. But that's OK. No other show I know of manages to use real science so adeptly in the service of its story and its grand universe building. I often rewatch episodes of "The Expanse" just to get a sense of "Oh yeah, that's how it might look." In a way, the show is the best vision I've ever seen of a space-faring future that may be just a few generations away.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY5MTc1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTc0OTQ1OX0.Enwz2n8tuWTiTJCUGhNZyKdFFMpIluc_gMiF81syppo/img.jpg?width=980" id="58949" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="19881167238be86e0db2bcae4e79f249" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="970" data-height="546" />
Credit: "The Expanse" / Syfy
<p>Now, I get it if you don't agree with me. I love "Star Trek" and I thought "Battlestar Galactica" (the new one) was amazing and I do adore "The Mandalorian". They are all fun and important and worth watching and thinking about. And maybe you love them more than anything else. But when you sum up the acting, the universe building, and the use of real science where it matters, I think nothing can beat "The Expanse". And with a <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_expanse" target="_blank">Rotten Tomato</a> average rating of 93%, I'm clearly not the only one who feels this way.</p><p>Best.</p><p>Show.</p><p>Ever. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Thinking thresholds: Is science the only source of truth in the world?
Adam Frank, a card-carrying atheist and physics professor, wonders if there might be more to life than pure science.
04 February, 2021
Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images / Big Think
- With all due respect to Copernicus, writes Adam Frank, humans are at the center of it all.
- Science is just one of many sources of truth in the world. The lived, subjective experience of humans creates reality, and when science excludes subjective experience, we end up with a less useful kind of science.
- Can science and philosophy form a union that gets us to a far richer account of the world and a far richer science?
<p>So, what is this about? Where are we going with it all? What is its point?</p>
<p>Today marks my first post of this most excellent incarnation of 13.8. Since the new home for the blog represents a continuation of a project of thinking <a href="https://bigthink.com/u/marcelo-gleiser" target="_blank">Marcelo</a> and I started a decade ago, I wanted to begin with a 10,000-foot view. What was it that Marcelo and I were aiming for when we began with <em>13.7 Cosmos and Culture</em> on NPR 10 years ago? And where are we pointing towards now? </p>
<p>The answer, I believe, can be embodied in a single word: thresholds.</p>
<p>I am a scientist and all I ever wanted to be was a scientist. For me, science was never a career choice. Instead, it was an all-encompassing way of living. Through science, I found a perspective and a path that offered a larger way of seeing my small life and its complications. Through science, I could also see how exquisitely sculpted the world was. That beauty gave me comfort and made the experience of my life richer. For that, I have been profoundly grateful.</p><p>But as I went from a Carl Sagan-reading, science-obsessed teen to a math-physics drunk graduate student and on to card-carrying professor, my approach to science has changed. Always an atheist, when I was younger, I thought no aspect of the world was immune to science's reach. The triumphs of Newton, Lagrange, Boltzmann and Einstein showed me that science offered a way out of the cave of limited human perspectives. Through sciences' principles and practices, I thought we'd found a way to a truly objective view of the world. It was a God's-eye perspective that revealed the totality of the universe—space, time, matter—independent of us. It was the world, in and of itself, revealed to our minds through the power of reason.</p><p>Sounds glorious, doesn't it? It certainly did to me at one point. Now, however, I think there is more, much more to the story of us and the world. Now I've come to believe that the whole "Gods-eye view" thing was a mistake. It was a very useful mistake and one that helped positively shape the first three or four hundred years of science's history. But it was a mistake nonetheless and now it has led us to a remarkable range of paradoxes and closed loops in subjects ranging from cosmology to consciousness. The job before us then is to go beyond that mistake and see where it leads us.</p><p>That is why I am interested in the science and philosophy of thresholds.</p>
<p>There is a fundamental problem with this "view from nowhere," this perfectly objective God's-eye view of science. That problem is it fails to see our proper place in the universe. With all due respect to Copernicus, that place is at the center of it all.</p><p>There can be no experience of the world without the experiencer and that, my dear friends, is <em>us</em>. Before anyone can make theories or get data or have ideas about the world, there must be the raw presence of being-in-the-world. The world doesn't appear in the abstract to a disembodied perspective floating in space... it appears to us, exactly where and when we are. That means to you or to me right now. In other words, you can't ignore the brute, existential, phenomenological fact of being <em>subjects</em>.</p><p>Of course, 'subjectivity' is a dirty word in science. We rightfully spend a lot of time trying to excise our research of the effects of subjectivity. That is all well and good if you are trying to understand particles in a box or bacteria in a dish. In fact, the methods we use to purge our research of subjective biases reveal the real meaning of 'objective' in science. It's not a metaphysical position about some perfect, platonic ideal version of reality. Instead, it's about getting the same results if we perform the same experiment. That's when the knowledge gained from an experiment can properly be called objective.</p><p>But as we've pushed deeper and deeper into the experience of the world, it no longer makes sense to ignore that we are always at the center of that experience. From the nature of time to the nature of consciousness, taking the act of <em>being a subject</em> seriously offers a new direction for thinking about the biggest issues facing science and philosophy.</p>
<blockquote>We have to invent new languages that can deal with the strange loops where the world creates the self, and the self creates the world. We have to deal with the fact that <em>reality</em> is always <em>our reality.</em></blockquote>
<p>That's where the idea of thresholds appears. I once read a definition of poetry as being "that which takes us to the boundary between the expressible and the inexpressible." That, to me, is the real frontier. That is what I think we should be interested in once we recognize that science is not the only kind of truth out there. Poetry and all the arts, for example, reveal their kinds of truth. And there is a truth that can come from spiritual endeavor (or whatever you want to call it) as well. These other truths have their own place and their own power and don't simply reduce down to, say, neuroscience or some other scientific discipline.</p><p>To understand them, and science's place among them, we have to be willing to explore those thresholds between the expressible and inexpressible. We have to invent new languages that can deal with the strange loops where the world creates the self, and the self creates the world. We have to deal with the fact that <em>reality</em> is always <em>our reality.</em></p><p>The problem with the God's-eye view of science is that it confuses the illusion of being right for actually being in accord with the weirdness of being an experiencing subject. It appears to offer a perfect, hermetically sealed account of the universe that seems so beautiful until you realize it's missing the most important quality: life. Not life as an account of a thermodynamic system, but life as our embodied, lived experience.</p><p>I am hopeful there are ways to think about science and philosophy that never forget that fact. I am hopeful that, if we can work our way up to those dynamic thresholds of experience, we may get a far richer account of the world and a far richer science. Most of all, I am hopeful that by facing those thresholds we might develop a new understanding that is both beautifully true and truly helpful.</p><p>That, in one form or another, is what 13.8 is going to be all about.</p>
<p><em>Visit <a href="https://bigthink.com/13-8/" target="_self">13.8</a> weekly for new articles by Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser.</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
13.8: Why we’re here
Welcome to the 13.8 relaunch, a new Big Think column led by physicists and friends Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser.
03 February, 2021
Credit: Adobe Stock/Big Think
- 13.8 is relaunching on Big Think today! Visit 13.8 every week to join physicists Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser as they tackle the big, serious, silly, and small questions in science.
- What will you learn at 13.8? Adam and Marcelo will look critically at straight-up science news, from life in the universe and cognitive science to particle physics and everything that blows their minds.
- They're also going to spend a lot of ink on where science and culture meet. That means book and movie reviews, pieces on the overlap between Buddhist views on mind and current neuroscience, and how we can tackle climate change in the face of science denial.
<p>The world is a place of unfathomable beauty. Our highest purpose is to study its cosmic intricacies with joy and wonder. The world is a place of endless sorrow and suffering. Our highest purpose is to find ways to heal, inspire, and be useful.</p>
<p>Although, at first sight, these two statements may appear diametrically opposite and irreconcilable, they are woven together through our quest for meaning, being complementary aspects of what it means to be human. Even if these twin aspects of the human condition have always been at play, in our current times the various tensions and potential promises they incite frame the most important question facing us all: What is the overlap between science and culture?</p>
<blockquote>How can we find a way forward with climate change in the face of such powerful science denial? How concerned should we really be about artificial intelligence? And what about other existential threats to our species?</blockquote>
<p>We live in a scientifically dominated age. Virtually every aspect of our lives is now mediated in some way by science and technology. Our greatest threats, from climate change to nuclear war to the unintentional effects of AI and automation, all stem from science and technology. Our greatest expressions of hope, from medical advances to space exploration to green technologies, also rise from science. As do our greatest fears, as technology and its uses contribute to the decline of our project of civilization. Today, science can't be separated from culture: for better or for worse, their symbiotic relationship drives forward the frontiers of arts and politics.</p><p>As a result, if we really want to understand the human condition in the 21st century, we need to critically investigate the braiding of science and culture in all its glory and hope and danger.</p><p>That's what 13.8 is all about.</p><p>We started to blog more than a decade ago, when the two of us met over coffee on a sunny day at Dartmouth College. We were, then and now, both researchers passionate about our work and the boundless potential of science. But we were, and still are, just as interested in where, when, and how science influences and is influenced by the rest of human endeavor. We knew science isn't the only way human beings search for their truths. Music, poetry, religions, and the endless fight for justice also sculpt our experience of what is essential and what is fundamental, explorations of our identity and of our relations to each other and to the natural world.</p><p>So that's what we started writing about. For many years, the blog ran on NPR (where it was called 13.7 Cosmos and Culture). Then we moved to Orbiter, a remarkable online project that pushed the boundaries of reporting on science and the question of meaning. Today, we are happy to begin the next step in the journey with Big Think.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU2ODQxNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjA5Nzg3M30.Q_TNz3kEuuCliddyUNVrvrFNqVbuSbt1cT_RiiiEPt4/img.jpg?width=980" id="e41c3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4290d0ee0d76129d593d450136fd190f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser" data-width="1196" data-height="673" />
Physicists and 13.8 co-founders Adam Frank (left) and Marcelo Gleiser (right).
<p>If you are not familiar with 13.8 (and we invite you to take a look at past material <a href="https://bigthink.com/13-8/" target="_blank">here</a>), let us tell you what you can expect from our postings on Big Think. Sometimes we will cover straight-up science news. From life in the universe to the frontiers of cosmology and particle physics, or the latest developments in artificial intelligence and cognitive science, we are going to be exploring the cutting edges of science with a researcher's eye to what's solid, what's silly, and what blows our minds.</p><p>But we are also going to spend a lot of ink, (ok, not ink but electrons) on where science and culture meet. In the weeks that follow you'll find book and movie reviews, as well as pieces on the overlap between Buddhist views on mind and current neuroscience, or how the technology of Triple-A video games (like "The Last of Us II") change the art of storytelling. There will also be a lot about the future of humanity. How can we find a way forward with climate change in the face of such powerful science denial? How concerned should we really be about artificial intelligence? And what about other existential threats to our species?</p><p>We are incredibly excited to be working with Big Think on this next phase of 13.8's journey into science and the human experience. We hope you will join us and our community of followers on this exploration of the boundless frontier.</p><p><em>Visit <a href="https://bigthink.com/13-8/" target="_blank">13.8</a> weekly for new articles by Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser.</em></p>
<p><br></p>
Keep reading
Show less
What is the ‘self’? The 3 layers of your identity.
Answering the question of who you are is not an easy task. Let's unpack what culture, philosophy, and neuroscience have to say.
22 January, 2021
- Who am I? It's a question that humans have grappled with since the dawn of time, and most of us are no closer to an answer.
- Trying to pin down what makes you you depends on which school of thought you prescribe to. Some argue that the self is an illusion, while others believe that finding one's "true self" is about sincerity and authenticity.
- In this video, author Gish Jen, Harvard professor Michael Puett, psychotherapist Mark Epstein, and neuroscientist Sam Harris discuss three layers of the self, looking through the lens of culture, philosophy, and neuroscience.
<div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="2b631de6a18c7bb295d803e79981f5ee" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199988781?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41JMySRcSSL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199988781?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$18.08</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$18.08</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$15.00</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
Keep reading
Show less
Warrior women: New evidence of ancient female big-game hunters
Turns out gender assumptions have been going on for quite some time.
09 November, 2020
Photo: hibrida / Adobe Stock
- A recent archaeological dig in the Peruvian mountains uncovered evidence of ancient female big-game hunters.
- This adds to a growing consensus that women played a much bigger role in hunting than previously assumed.
- Gender assumptions are a constant throughout history, with culture often playing a more important role than biology.
<p>You've likely heard it like this: for most of history, women foraged, secured water, and partook in minor agriculture while men went out to hunt. Even if this was the end of the story, women still provided an inordinate amount of calories for the tribe, as fruits, vegetables, and nuts accounted for the bulk of sustenance.</p><p>As with many myths, this longstanding story might not be completely accurate. Thanks to <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/45/eabd0310" target="_blank">recent archaeological findings</a> in Peru's Andes Mountains, published in the journal Science Advances, up to half the women in mobile groups in the Americas were big-game hunters. </p><p>University of California, Davis archaeologist Randall Haas started shifting his view of ancient hunting practices in 2018 while leading his crew 13,000 feet above sea level in Wilamay Patxja. Upon uncovering the remains, he automatically assumed one body was male due to the proximity of weaponry. </p><p>He was wrong. </p><p>The team unearthed a total of over 20,000 artifacts, including the remains of six bodies in five burial pits. One pit, which contained a teenage woman, included a toolkit with spearpoints and shafts. Tools for dissecting game were also discovered. In total, 24 stone tools were unearthed, including projectile points for killing large game, heavy rocks for stripping hides and cracking bones, and red ocher to preserve hides. </p><p>Previously, such tools were thought to be used for cutting or scraping when discovered near female remains. Haas says we need to rethink that approach, which is likely the result of modern bias. Buried near these pits were the remains of Andean deer and vicuña, two commonly hunted animals in Peru. </p><p>Haas's group then reviewed the remains of 429 bodies spread over 107 sites in the Americas. These individuals lived between 6,000 and 12,500 years ago. Big-game hunting tools were buried with 11 women and 16 men. The Wilamay Patxja dig is not an outlier. </p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDc2NDQ0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTA5NDUxM30.APHNOCmNft84y1FNYXVn0nBRsQywi7UwjBnRXufFHnY/img.jpg?width=980" id="5e4a1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fd6aa1ee19f1c34d41c47afaede5b53f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1400" data-height="1148" />
Credit: Randall Haas, University of California, Davis
Why Female Gladiators Were Polarizing Figures in Ancient Rome
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c4f5a67f268f643208d401a9224efce9"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/565gLzKgRvM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Extrapolating from the most recent dataset, Haas estimates that between 30-50 percent of big-game hunters were women. This doesn't imply that it's a global phenomenon, although female warriors were <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/women-warriors-hunter-gatherers-battles-mongolia" target="_blank">recently identified</a> in California, dating back roughly 5,000 years. Likewise, women warriors were <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/female-game-hunters-ancient-americas" target="_blank">discovered</a> in Mongolia 1,500 years ago and <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/skeleton-ignites-debate-over-whether-women-were-viking-warriors" target="_blank">in Scandinavia</a> about a millennium ago.</p><p>Researchers say these findings challenge our understanding of gender identities. Modern analysis can discover the biological sex of these individuals, though we cannot make assumptions about the role of men and women by current standards. As University of Miami archaeologist, Pamela Geller <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions/" target="_blank">says</a>, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"With few exceptions, the researchers who study hunting and gathering groups—regardless of which continent they work on—presume that a sexual division of labor was universal and rigid. And because it is commonsensical, they then have a hard time explaining why female-bodied individuals also bear the skeletal markers of hunting or have hunting tool kits as grave goods."</p><p>There's always the possibility that hunting tools were ritualistically buried alongside varied members of the tribe, including women. Yet we also have to remember that there were no supermarkets on the savanna. Tribal life was an all-hands-on-deck affair. Female hunters should surprise us no more than stay-at-home dads today. Societies are fluid dependent on circumstances, and the ancient world provided challenges we can only dream of today. </p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>. His new book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
