October 2017 – Theory in Archaeology

Response to Who Started the First Fire

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/neanderthal-fire/

In the article, “Who Started the First Fire”, by Dennis Sandgathe and Harold Dibble, it examines the origins of human’s ability to control fire. Since it is one of the most important technological advances in human history, it is interesting to understand who were the first to control and create fire.

Conventional theories thought that Neanderthals were not capable of making fire. As referenced in the 1981 film, “Quest for Fire”, it also illustrates how Neanderthals struggled to keep an ember burning and that they have no idea how to make a fire of their own. In contradiction to this, recent projects in Africa have found fire evidence from over 1 million years ago (Neanderthals came about 250,000 years ago).

An interesting question raised in the article asks how could have our ancestors survived and colonized in more northern areas in Asia and Europe, where the climate gets extremely cold, without being able to control fire? This idea leads me to believe that Neanderthals must have had some knowledge of fire as I do not know how they would be able to stay warm or cook any game that they had hunted, as vegetation in colder times were extremely limited. During this time, there would have been herds of reindeer, horses, and woolly mammoths as food sources, so how would Neanderthals be able to chew such meats without a way to make it more palatable and nutritious?

Research that had been done by Jill Pruetz, a primatologist at Iowa State University, showed the interactions between chimps and fire. Her foundings showed that the chimps were very aware of the behaviors of the fire and did not seem scared of it as other animals would. She also found that chimps would monitor the fires and scavenge the burnt out areas, thus using the wildfires to their advantage.

This article then switches to another set of findings where they had excavated two Middle Paleolithic sites, Pech de l’Azé IV and Roc de Marsal, in the Périgord region of southwestern France. At this site had found evidence of fire from warmer eras but no traces of these Neanderthals using fire during the colder periods where glaciers were widespread among Europe (70,000 – 40,000 years ago). This then leads to the questions of why did they only use fire in warmer times and not colder?

I believe that this study was approached in a behavioral theoretical perspective. I think this because the studies focused on the relationships between our early ancestors and their artifacts, which included hearths and tools, and the role that these artifacts had on the life of Neanderthals. These objects were viewed as active agents to behavior and these actions were analyzed in terms of making, using and control over fire. I think that these researchers may have been influenced to use this theoretical framework because, there is little evidence on who made the first fire in regards to specific artifacts, painting, scripts, etc. By having little data to work with, I think that approaching this study in a behavioral perspective was necessary because the relationships of Neanderthals to artifacts of fire is currently the best way to try and understand the behavior of our ancestors. therefore, since there is little data to support who made the first fire, trying to understand the behaviors of Neanderthals is the best way we can try to understand this technological advancement.

Lastly, I would also use this same theoretical approach because of the same influences that I had believed the researchers had faced when doing their own studies. unless there were more artifacts on past uses of fire, I think that focusing on behavior more than on materials is the best/only way to analyze uses of fire for the time being.

Response to: A Female Viking Warrior Interred at Birka

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2017/09/12/a-female-viking-warrior-interred-at-birka/

This topic peaked immense curiosity for me.

I have read brief articles about this topic of finding the first real female Viking before. In this particular case, the author Rundkvist elaborates on how the first real female Viking warrior was identified through sequencing the genomes of the bones. This is the first case recorded where there is a mismatch between osteo-sex and artefact gender. For me, this an incredible find, and almost feels liberating on behalf of feminist archaeology or queer archaeologies, despite the fact that it took nearly 40 years for someone to shine a light on a quiet osteologist who previously regarded the bones as female. Leading female academics are proven to be rare already, let alone listened to about their findings. I think it is also important to acknowledge the female reseachers such as Anna Kjellström who identified the bones as belonging to Birka’s grave 581.

Despite the presented evidence, there are still archaeologists who outright say they don’t believe this because of the weapons present, or the bones which could be from two different people. I can understand where they are coming from. In this field, one has to be critical of the entire picture. Can we say for sure this female was definitely associated with the items she was buried with? Was there possibly another person who she was buried with that was removed early? Even though I agree that the skeleton is female, maybe I personally can’t rule out any explanations of her surroundings until there is hard, empirical evidence that proves what archaeologists theorize.

I can’t help but wonder if the author of this article is a little biased in his opinion. Stating that the team of researchers who conducted the bone analysis are his “professional buddies” would make for a pretty slanted view towards the research of his friends, and possibly away from the critique of other academics. I think it is commendable he provides a few notes at the end of the article which address differing theories as noted above, I just hope he keeps an open mind, as well as future researchers when excavating graves.

The Untold Story of Japan’s First People

In Jude Isabella’s blog entry, The Untold Story of Japan’s First People, she illustrates the archaeological work done by a Japanese archaeologist, Hirofumi Kato. Through Kato’s passionate labor, we are exposed to the truth about Japanese history and the development of their first people. Thorough excavation of the northern Japanese island of Rebun demonstrates the post-processual archaeology that Kato uses to explain the one-sided history of Japan. Kato mentions that throughout most of his life in Japan, he realized that the history of the Ainu people was never taught in Japanese schools. The current education system focuses too much on the main island of Honshu, and their beliefs were that the Japanese people had just always been there. The early archaeology in Japan greatly misrepresented the diversity of Rebun and neighboring islands of Hokkaido. Kato stated that the Japanese government spend great efforts to hide the existence of the Ainu people. The fact derived from Kato’s excavation evidently provides traces of the Ainu culture which had been around since the 1600’s. In a way that is similar in the west, the Japanese government in the 1800’s colonized the islands of Hokkaido thus forcing Ainu populations to assimilate into Japanese culture. This continued until 2006 when the Japanese government was pressured internationally to finally recognize the Ainu people as an indigenous population. To be honest, not many of us have even heard of this story. A group of people that have occupied a large territory for centuries was never documented properly in the archaeological record due to government agenda and biases. The blog describes the recent Japanese excavations as “telephone booth digs” as to illustrate their objectives in salvaging and construction path clearing. To me, it sounds almost too convenient for the Japanese government to get rid of any evidence of the Ainu’s existence. Any artifacts found seemed to be intentionally misinterpreted or ignored if it did not relate to traditional Japanese history. This style of archaeology heavily leans towards processual archaeology. Artifacts were excavated and recorded subjectively. Science today tells us that Japanese people originated from northern Asia, and their descendants spread among the native people of Hokkaido. Before the samurai clans too control of the settlements in southern Hokkaido, the Ainu were prominent traders that supplied goods to Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Russian merchants. Despite their major contribution to the Asiatic economy, the Japanese government covered up their story to the point where the Ainu were nearly unheard of. Personally, the theme of this story resonates across all ancient history around the world. The victors of war write the story. I do not particularly like the nature of this theme, but I respect its power in shaping culture. This biased processual archaeology that the Japanese government implemented had emphasized their national pride and culture for centuries. However, for the sake of keeping records, and objective perspective is required to gather as much of the truth as possible about the history of our world.

Blog Link
https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/ainu-prejudice-pride/

Response to “Were We Ever Paleo Perfect” by Brenna Hassett

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/paleo-lifestyle-bioarchaeology/

The excerpt “Were We Ever Paleo Perfect?” by Brenna Hassett delves into the question of how and why cities were made. Indeed, she notes that there was a transition from settlers to dwellers, even though cities themselves posed many risks. Hassett brings the paleo image as a comparison to the unhealthy and sedentary lifestyle of city dwellers. As such, the author believes that the idealization of the paleo past foregoes archaeological evidence, and emphasizes an idea of where we should be, when we should be examining the journey to where we are.

Hassett, begins with a critique of modern day trends that base themselves on the whimsical paleo lifestyle. Hassett parodies this in an illustrative approach, depicting the reconstructed lives of a man and woman living 15,000 years ago. He is the strong healthy hunter, while she is the beautiful bearer of children, who amusingly is the doppelganger of Raquel Welch. Both are superior physical specimens based on their active paleo lifestyle. Through this illustration, the author makes her point that current fads and trends are not represented in the archaeological record and yet most people have come in contact with this paleo belief system. For many years, I watched my own father go to the gym and swear by this paleo diet, which was heavily promoted by the gyms personal trainers. Sure, it made sense at the time, as I pictured a strong man with full hair, wearing fur and carrying a heavy stone ax. However, I agree with the author that this was not the reality of past human societies, especially in the transition to urban settlements.

In this excerpt, there is an emphasis on the scientific method and using bioarchaeology to examine skeletons, which the author believes provides specific details of our health from 15,000 years ago to now. I agree with Hassett’s assertion that bioarchaeology can provide valuable and insightful information about a persons diet and health. However, the claim that we can also analyze how and why cities are created requires more understanding than what skeletal patterns can provide. Additionally, the archaeologist has to rely on there being sufficient bone material available for examination, which is not guaranteed. From my point of view, this excerpt is influenced by the processual theory, due to the use of scientific data to create patterns. I do not believe this can be effective alone, as it cannot account for questions of ideology and agency, which should be included, as cities can be built for social, religious, political and economic pursuits. As such, I propose incorporating the post-processual theory, as this would address ideology and agency. Additionally, it would counterbalance the scientific method and possible subjectivities.

Overall, this reading was intriguing and leaves me wanting to sit and think about what led us to this urban lifestyle, when overpopulation, pollution, disease, inequality and death are familiar concepts. Also, I particularly enjoyed the musing of Hassett in this excerpt with the sarcastic undertones towards the magical lifestyle of our paleo ancestors and the Raquel Welch and Monty Python references. Indeed, the emphasis on bioarchaeology and the authors writing style has left me curious as to how the argument is further laid out.

Response to Confronting Cultural Imperialism in Native American Archaeology by Charles R. Riggs

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/native-american-archaeology/

I found this articles discussion very interesting in its approach towards Native American peoples and their feeling towards the field of archaeology in North America. How instead of assuming opinions of Indigenous people from a general sense the author, Charles Riggs, gives examples from his own personal experiences. When a student asks him “Why do archaeologists think they have the right to tell me about my own history?” (Riggs) he willingly admits that his response was probably inadequate.

In places like Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece the history of the area is preserved, artifacts are placed in museums while for the most part still honoring the wishes of the country of origin. Where as the archaeological community and government in America treat Indigenous populations and their history as secondary, “the dominant culture largely viewed Native Americans as subhuman, to be objectified and eradicated.” (Riggs)

I feel like when people begin to question the already uneasy relationship between archaeologists and Native Americans people frequently become more defensive and more likely to close off any discussion on the topic. This in turn stunts the positive aspects that the theory of Indigenous archaeology tries to work towards, such as conservation of Indigenous land, identity and ownership. An example of this in the test was the accusation that he [Riggs] was a grave robber. He admits that he was personally not guilty of this, by doing this he ignores the historical tension between the two groups, shifting the blame.

The article did a good job in bringing up highly publicized issues that covered headlines in international news such as the protests over the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016. The example of the Dakota Access pipeline exemplifies how native groups in the past as well as the present struggle to obtain rights and protect their cultural past. During the development of the field, archaeology for the most part exists outside or separate from the people whom they study. Acting as if the work they do is non-threatening towards less dominant groups. The article acknowledges how we have to listen to indigenous groups opinions regarding their heritages using them as a means to an end of study.

Can archaeology shed light on future societies?

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/fifth-beginning/

Can archaeology shed light on future societies? Is using what we have learned (or theorized about) through archaeology to predict the future of our world always viable? Robert L. Kelly argues that “hunter-gatherers didn’t intend to become farmers; they were simply trying to be the best hunter-gatherers they could be. Such transformations have nothing to do with progress. The same is true today. In trying to be the most-industrialized, best-armed, most successful capitalist nation-states we can be, we should expect to become something completely new.” I am uncertain as to why Kelly claims that transformations in human societies have nothing to do with progress, or why he seems to suggest that there has only been four to five “beginnings” of society and humanity. I think this is an incorrect assumption; everything has to do with progress, and progress isn’t as simple as specific “beginnings”. It is possible that hunter-gatherers, thousands of years ago, didn’t directly intend to become farmers, but they at least recognized that they were capable of domesticating both edible plants and animals. Whether you believe that these hunter-gatherers farmed because of a need for easily accessible food sources, or because they recognized the significance of ownership of property, is entirely up for debate. Nonetheless, there was recognition of the possibility of progress or change, regardless of the reasoning behind it all. Kelly seems to take a behavioral approach, as he only considers the outcomes of human action, rather than attempting to understand imagination or intention of people.

The difference between the societies of hunter-gatherer turned farmers, and our contemporary world is that our ancestors likely did not have the means to predict or theorize about the future. They likely couldn’t guess at the results of their efforts at farming thousands of years into the future. They didn’t have an extensive recorded history of the world to refer to. But in our world today, we can predict the outcomes of human “progress” in our world. We can predict the outcomes of climate change, or the effects of an overpopulated globe, for example. Kelly argues that “we are now citizens of the world… the fifth beginning will usher in a world generally at peace, one marked by new forms of cooperation in trade, defense, education, entertainment, sports, medicine, and science.” But, if we have learned anything from archaeology or even history, it is that there has likely never been a period of peace in the world. We do have an extensive recorded history to refer to. Yes, the world is always changing, although I do think it is realistic to consider that it is human nature to be non-peaceful, selfish, and destructive.

While Kelly claims “transformations have nothing to do with progress. The same is true today,” this cannot be true if we live in an age where progress is recognized more than ever. I argue that progress and transformation are even desired today. It is true that we can refer to archaeological data to show how transformations take place, but the current world is very different from the world of 12,000 years ago. We can know what will happen if we take certain progressive steps. We are different from the earliest farming societies because we are able to plan our impacts on the world. It is also better to theorize about past societies through agency theory, by arguing that individuals can comprehend the limits of their repetitive behaviors, and break away from these limits. However, I am unsure that the various archaeological data that we have today can shed light on the future of human society simply because we have entered an age of globalization, and inevitably cultural homogenization.

Seeing Children in the Archaeological Record

https://www.sapiens.org/column/curiosities/gender-archaeology/

Very often, the interpretations given by archaeologists for artefacts baffle me. Why is the “go to” explanation for a little figure “a hunting talisman” or “a source of ritual magic”? I am glad Dr. Nash asks if the Dolores Cave figurine is simply a toy. Why have other archaeologists of the past never considered the possibility that these little figures had no meaning at all, except to a child?

I think we as modern humans have trouble imagining that people of the past had loving, caring relationships with our families and especially our children. Because so few toys do survive from the past, we might tend to think of toys as something new and something modern, but if we really have a closer look, toys have always been there. They, like the children who played with them, are invisible until we take the time to see them. Like the children who played with them, the artefacts relating to children may not seem important until we look for them. Few archaeologists do look for the children. The commonly asked questions asked of an archaeological site seem to relate to economy, trade, life-ways, and technology, not the everyday, and certainly not the mother making certain her child is fed, warm, dry, and happy. When do we ever ask what made children happy in a Paleoindian household? We might never know, but we can ask what makes any child happy and apply that to a child any time in history. All children need is a full tummy, a warm bed, love from a parent, and something to play with and hold before they go to sleep.

When recreating an image of a Neolithic village, for the most part we focus on the survival mechanisms that allowed cultures to thrive. Seldom do we picture children chasing one another around, screaming and laughing the way our children do in a modern playground. Did bronze-age children laugh and play? Did they have wooden swords and dolls? What about games? When we find game pieces from Greece and Rome, we tend to interpret them as having been from a game for adults. But why have we done this in the past?

The only explanation I can think of is that most archaeologists in the past have been men. I am not dishonouring those men who were great Dads too, but they are not, for the most part, looking for children in the archaeological record. A majority of men are very male focussed. “How do I measure up to that other guy? How did these guys measure up to those guys?” As “man stuff” like war and violence are of interest to most men, that is what they are looking for. That Folsom Point must have been made by a man to be used by a man to hunt or to go to war with other men in rival nations. I am generalizing here (and I hope we are getting past this), but let’s face it, cedar baskets and fishing nets are not as exciting as manly things like power, politics, and hunting woolly mammoth and sabre-tooth tigers.

As Joan Gero points out, tool manufacture and use was not the absolute domain of men. Archaeologists should be willing to consider that a Folsom Point might well have been manufactured by a woman; flint-knapping requires not physical strength, but skill and finesse. A woman might have made a Folsom Point so she could cut bark to make a basket. Maybe she used it to harvest and cut squash. Perhaps she used that Folsom Point to cut corn husks and string to make a doll for her child (I have made a few corn dolls myself – I can imagine mothers through the centuries doing this). It is not beyond the realm of possibility. Could that little split trig animal have been made as a set of little animals for children to play with? Our children have animal figures, so why not?

It is unlikely that adults in past cultures always saw children as little adults that were only to be taught how to work to survive. Hunter-gather societies, unlike agricultural societies, often had spare time on their hands. In the early colonial period of the Americas, First Nations were reportedly very kind to and lenient with their children – far kinder and more lenient than colonial Europeans were – so it not beyond belief that toys for First Nations children might be commonplace. Wills from staunch early modern England show that even children there had toys and sometimes had what was referred to as “dimity” (diminutive) play furniture that was just their size, but few examples survive. Just because toys do not survive to the present does not mean they never existed.

I am a mother of four children, but I am a history and archaeology student as well. My role as a mother makes me ask, “Where are the children in archaeology?” There have always been children, so in my mind, there must always have been toys. I wonder now if archaeologists of the past have simply refused to recognise them as such.

In Response to Elizabeth Svoboda’s “The Darkest Truths”

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/the-darkest-truths/

When it comes to subject matter such as the Holocaust it is bound to spark a conversation. Svoboda’s article about work in Treblinka, Sobibór, and Bełżec, Poland is one of a sensitive but deeply important nature. This all in a day and age when it seems many people still need to be reminded of the sheer magnitude of damage that can be caused by segregation and discrimination.

Despite the fact that the War occurred roughly 75 years ago, I think that it is still such an important topic of discussion. I myself was able to make the trip to the more well known concentration camps Auschwitz I, and the labour camp turned extermination camp, Auschwitz II – Birkenau about a year and a half ago. As an anthropology major, I understand that there is a need for reflexivity, relativity, and objectivity (to the best humanly possible extent) in the examination of anything whether it be an ancient culture or a historical site such as the Nazi camps of World War II; I also cannot deny that going to Auschwitz I and II was the kind of experience that sticks with you, and that there is something that just cannot be explained about the feelings I had when I walked through the camps.

I respect the technological methods and the ethics of the archaeologists highlighted in the article who were able to work with members of the Jewish community to make compromises in using non-invasive technologies and tactics to analyze the sites because the way that the knowledge from the Holocaust has been distributed has been, for the most part, on a global scale. It’s the kind of knowledge that the Jewish community should, and I do believe they have, priority privilege to, but the world needs to know as well in order to prevent and fight against similar inhumanities which have had or been occurring in places around the world, eg: Soviet Union, Rwanda, Sudan, and the one that comes to mind as a very current situation would be in Myanmar; this is just naming a few because these do not make even a dent in the list.

So when Svobdova also mentions the online attacks on Sturdy Colls by neo-Nazis and the skepticisms of Holocaust deniers, I am unfortunately unsurprised, but equally horrified for what it could mean for the future. Regardless it is important to continue the work in sites like these. When Svobdova asks, “how necessary is it to turn an exacting new lens on long-buried atrocities,” my mind goes directly to the quote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Cliché, yes, but I believe in it strongly. It’s when we stop analyzing the long and lost data completely that we begin to move backwards and I dare say we aren’t too far from a turning point, whether that be in the right direction or the wrong one is to be determined.

Response to: “What Does a Woman Know?” by Kathleen Sheppard

https://thenewinquiry.com/blog/what-does-a-woman-know/

“They are led by a woman. What does a woman know?”

A lot more than she’s given credit for.

Especially in archaeology.

Women have always faced extra challenges and hurdles in terms of the sciences, and the discipline of archaeology is no exception to that. Kathleen Sheppard explains how, traditionally, female archaeologists have long been outshined by the men in their field, and relegated to more behind-the-scenes tasks like cataloguing, organizing, and publishing the work of others, and that this trend has been happening since the dawn of the discipline. The unfairness doesn’t end there though, because women, especially in the earlier decades of archaeology, were also faced with the seemingly impossible decision between marriage and starting a family, or their career – a choice that men were never pressured into making, and in actuality the pursuit of marriage and having a family tended to enhance their careers, rather than end them.

Despite the fact that female archaeologists were few and far between, at least in comparison to their male counterparts, their contributions to the field should not be overlooked, and often still are, simply because they were not doing glamorous fieldwork or in the direct spotlight. There is a lot of importance in the quieter administrative tasks that women tended to be slated with, after all, what good is gathering all that data if you can’t find and study it later on?

Kathleen Sheppard illustrates this occurrence of marginalization by shining a light on one female archaeologist, Caroline Ransom Williams, whose contributions and dedication to the field were forgotten throughout the decades because rarely do people remember the supporting characters of a story. She was an invaluable resource to her male colleagues but ultimately withdrew from the profession because, like many women around the turn of the 20th century, the expectation of starting a family and the importance of getting married made it difficult to continue her career, even though she appeared destined for great things.

Sheppard also approaches this trend in archaeology from a feminist viewpoint, and how the silencing of the voice of female archaeologists has robbed the academic community of valuable insights and knowledge. She also brings in the major tenets of queer archaeology too, because both work well together and are relevant to the trends she outlines. Feminist archaeology sets out to challenge common assumptions and things that are taken for granted, along with establishing a ‘female voice’ with the goal of reaching a place of multi-vocality in the archaeological discipline. Queer archaeology, too, sets out to challenge the norm and make the marginalized in the past more visible – in this instance, professional women in archaeology.

I think that these two theoretical frameworks are exactly what is needed for critiquing the treatment of women and their work in archaeology, and both act as a good guideline on how the discipline needs to progress in the future. This is because it is important to challenge common conceptions and the traditional way of interpreting the past, along with understanding the discipline itself, because in order for archaeology to become more holistic, diverse, and inclusive, all voices need to be heard, both in the future and from work done in the past.

Now, while the industry has certainly improved over the past few decades, there is always room for improvement and I think that it’s foolish to assume that the problem has been solved just because there are more visible female archaeologists within the discipline today. I think that it is important to continually question and analyze what we are being taught and how we interpret the world around us, and it is equally as important to take these everchanging mindsets and use them to gain a better understanding of where we are going as a discipline, and also where we have been.

By Caitlin Bergh

Course Blog Post

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/rams-bridge-god-or-geology/

Many legends regarding ancient sites and land formations are highly interesting. This article details the formation of the Ram’s Bridge, a 50 kilometer submerged strait of limestone shoals linking India and Sri Lanka. Ramayana, an Indian poem depicts the creation of Ram’s Bridge as the aid of the god Vishnu who called upon warrior monkeys to build a bridge, allowing Ram to travel to Sri Lanka to save Sita from the demon Ravana who had kidnapped her. Similarly to post-colonial archaeology the author attempts to incorporate the voices of locals and religious groups into theories of how the site was formed. Because there is little detailed scientific research into Ram’s Bridge there are not many other theories to compare Ramayana to. The multivocal approach to understanding the formation is interesting, though perhaps the monkey warriors were not literally monkeys but the name or description of a primitive group of human warriors who pledged allegiance to the god.

There is debate amongst Indian groups on what to do with the site with cultural, economic, political, environmental and religious factors impacting potential decisions. A canal project has been proposed to create a shipping lane into India. Some religious groups argue that Ram’s Bridge is a sacred and historic site that is older than the Great Wall of China and in need of protection, while others such as the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), a branch of the Indian Ministry of Culture, view the site as nothing more than a collection of sandbanks protected by sedimentation with no evidence of it being man-made. Ecological concerns have stalled the canal project, however archaeological research has thus far been insufficient in proving the supposed significance of the site with critic of the data used in the ASI’s declaration as inconclusive. Possible post-processual critic of the ASI’s research would be that they may have attempted to find data to allow the construction of the canal, instead of attempting to be objective. There is also a case to be made that the perception of Ram’s Bridge as a holy site matters more than if it actually was historically, as its destruction would not affect the Hindu communities differently due to an academic paper challenging their beliefs. The impact the destruction of Ram’s Bridge would have on the groups believing in the legend of Ramayana should be taken into consideration even if the ecological concerns are alleviated, and the ASI’s declaration is verified.

Alok Tripathi’s research assignment into Ram’s Bridge will attempt to prove the validity of the legend of the bridge being man-made and searching for remnants of ancient civilizations. Although it would be interesting for more legends throughout the world to be proven to be at least partially true, finding a site near the bridge fails to prove that the people built the bridge as they could have even built the site to access the bridge more easily. Tripathi may also be looking for what confirms his theory or the pursuit of glory more so than a thorough archaeological dig. The primary dangers of Tripathi’s research is violence committed in the “defense” of the Hindu holy site, as the transformation of a Hindu holy temple into the Islamic mosque sparked violent riots and led to the death of approximately 2000 people, though Tripathi believes that because his research is academic it will not alienate or offend anyone. Tripathi’s findings will offend some, groups with economic or religious stakes in the site are unlikely to be objective and there is viable risk of violence or censorship of his findings.