Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
The New Scientist has an interesting, but short piece up which I will quote in it's entirety (wouldn't make sense otherwise):
PERSEPOLIS, once the capital of the Persian empire, and the massive mud-brick Bam citadel are among the nine listed World Heritage Sites in Iran. Yet leading archaeologists are urging colleagues to refuse any military requests to draw up a list of Iranian sites that should be exempted from air strikes."Such advice would provide cultural credibility and respectability to the military action," said a resolution agreed by the World Archaeological Congress in Dublin, Ireland, last week. Instead, delegates were advised to emphasise the harm that any military action would do to Iran's people and heritage.
During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, bombing damaged important monuments, including the Al-Zohur Palace in Baghdad, and museums and archaeological sites were later looted - even though archaeologists had been consulted in advance. "If these archaeologists had little impact in terms of saving even the few selected archaeological sites listed, what did they achieve?" asks Yannis Hamilakis of the University of Southampton, UK.
I have to say that I 100% agree with this. Don't get me wrong, Iranian archaeological sites are every bit as important as any other archaeology site, and deserve protection. Unfortunately, any kind of aide of this nature would only be seized upon as a pretext to help justify an invasion...
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Thanks for sharing this. As an Iranian born American, I'm extremely interested in what will happen between Iran and the 'rest of the world.' In regards to this issue, I see where the archaeologists are coming from and I respect their decision.
However, I can't help but think that by not providing the location and information of archaeological sites within Iran -- these conscientious objectors will inadvertently prevent these sites from being bombed. It seems like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Kambiz
Posted by: Kambiz Kamrani | July 15, 2008 9:42 PM
... Not like knowledge of Iraq's archaeological and cultural heritage sites, protected them.
Kambiz
Posted by: Kambiz Kamrani | July 15, 2008 9:43 PM
A useless protest but if it makes them feel better, that's fine. Naming archeological sites that should be protected and preserved could also be perceived as telling in advance where invaders are NOT going to drop bombs, thus providing safe havens for whoever.
Let them speak out on the advisability of any attack, let them suggest reasons why one not take place... but to refuse to take steps to protect archeological sites because it gives legitimacy to such a proposed attack is silly.
Few politicians have ever asked archeologists to lend them legitimacy. Overweening self-importance.
Posted by: Donna B. | July 15, 2008 9:58 PM
Here we go again. Weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism. Any mention yet of biological weapons?
Why does the American administration need an excuse? Surely they might as well just go in and claim all the oil for their mates, again.
Posted by: terryt | July 16, 2008 1:08 AM
I have to say I agree completely with Afarensis here. I fail to see how any archaeologist with any kind of conscience at all, could possibly "help" any military establishment to do anything that would allow them to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran! It is absolutely disgusting, that the "military" would even ask them!
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | July 16, 2008 1:50 AM
Prior to the Iraq war the planners did, in fact, solicit this information from archaeologists. I know some who were consulted. That information went straight into the circular file, but the act that they were consulted was retained by some war supporters as evidence of the care taken in planning the attack.
The idiots built a base on Babylon, for Christ's sake! If we were dealing with people in our military and administration who actually weren't complete fuckwits, then maybe holding our noses and providing this information might help minimize the damage to archaeological sites in the event of a new war. Unfortunately, past experience tells us that they're too stupid, careless, or arrogant to actually care about any cultural or archaeological sites, regardless of what they're saying now. Any archaeologist who decides to help the war planners will do absolutely nothing to help save sites, but will help push us closer to war with Iran.
Is that clear enough?
Posted by: lugal | July 16, 2008 8:05 AM
I would suggest that archeologists start listing every square inch of Iran -- people of kind of another have inhabited Iran, Persia, and before that who knows what the land was called, but people were there far back into prehistory, before Homo sapiens ever left Africa (before 70 kya). Homo erectus marched through there, possibly even Homo habilis, or whatever species became Homo georgicus (the answer depends upon whether the scientists is a splitter or a lumper). We can't afford to drop a single bomb anywhere because we would surely obliterate priceless evidence of...something! So start documenting and stop conscientiously objecting with silence!
Posted by: DianaGainer | July 17, 2008 12:28 PM
Diana a couple of points:
1. Anthropologists were asked for that kind of help before the Iraq invasion. Didn't do any good whatsoever and I see no reason to repeat an exercise in futility.
2. You say politicians have never asked anthropologists to lend them legitimacy, but remember all the fuss about anthropologists in Iraq? Came during the debate over the "surge" and was nothing more than an exercise in propaganda.
3. Anthropology has, unfortunately, been a handmaiden for imperialism in the past and we (the anthropological community) are still suffering the ill effects of that collusion. I have no wish to return to those days.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | July 18, 2008 7:58 AM
I understand your point of view, and I am aware of how anthropologists were used and abused in the past. But I think in this case, we may have a chance to make our case. Before the U.S. went into Iraq, there was such a groundswell of support among the general public that our protests were too small to make any difference. Now, there is a lot of opposition to further military intervention. I am suggesting that we capitalize on that. Give that opposition as much ammunition as possible. Publicize our anti-bombing info generally, so that everyone knows what a great loss it would be if we went into Iran in the same mad way there. I say this because people did not want to get involved in another European war after WWI -- but, facing Hitler, it was necessary. One never knows if the future might be still worse if one does not face one's enemy. In this case I am referring to the bomb-happy government as the "enemy."
Posted by: DianaGainer | July 26, 2008 10:54 AM