sinuheminem

[sinuheminem]

a rant about racist and uninformed archaeology

i am not a reliable source of information. i’m simply a teenager on the internet who reads books and occasionally takes ap classes. sources in the replies.

so i’m in AP african american studies (henceforth will be abbreviating to APAFAM) and recently we have been studying ancient african civilizations. our theses at the moment are about dispelling racist ideologies about indigenous african societies being “uncivilized.”

if theres one thing i’ve learned by studying archaeology, and particularly african archaeology, its that you should never look at the forum posts. 80% of them are some kind of racist. and today, i happened to stumble upon another example of this.

my thesis is concerning the Nok people of western africa. the most significant of this research was done by a man named Dr. Bernard F. (i will not be saying his full last name for purposes of censorship.), who, for context, is a british white man. dr. bernard is a british white man.

his most prominent findings, for these purposes, was a set of smelting furnaces and tools. the furnaces show remnants of iron in them, and many of the tools are either stone or iron. the Nok people are credited with being one of the only civilizations skipping the copper/bronze ages, going straight from stone to the complex process of iron tools.

then. i found this forum post.

first of all: lets just acknowledge the blatant racism of the statement that one of the most important achievements of west africa is “an afrocentrist lie,” when the man who DID THE RESEARCH to SUPPORT THIS CLAIM was a WHITE BRITISH MAN. “afrocentrism” my butt.

second of all: look at the picture in question. you see the top fragments? yknow, the ones that are speckled orange? orange? like rust??? right. and we know that regular old stone doesn’t rust…. and copper and bronze rust green… so… it must be… IRON.

please. if you’re going to do this. just. use your context clues. context clues are a very, very, very important part of archaeology. i cannot do this again. i think i’ll have a heart attack.

[sinuheminem]

i’ve been too busy to make any essays recently, but here’s something i wrote instead of doing my AP Lang mock exam essay lol

first of all i just. i need to talk about john green. i think for most john green fans, our first experience with him was the fault in our stars. i watched the movie first, you can shame me for that if you want. i didn't even know that there was a book. my mom suggested the movie to me in the first place. i remember watching it very vividly. we piled together and honed in on our little 12 inch tv. i definitely cried when i watched it, and then i cried again several years later when i read the book.

(adult figure) asked me recently why i liked john green so much. i was telling him that i was struggling to pirate the anthropocene review (sorry (english teacher), i wasn't able to get to the library) and he offered to buy me the book instead. actually, he didn't offer. i told him no and that it was fine and i would figure it out, and then he did it anyway, bless his poor, unmedicated soul. the first time he asked me the question, i didn't really know what to say. why do i like john green? why do christians like the bible? why do jews like the torah or muslims the q'uran or buddhists buddha? i like john green because he's amazing.

but after thinking about it for approximately 2.5 seconds, i realized it was probably good to ask yourself this question. why do you like someone's writing? why do you like people at all? does the writing offer you anything? do the people fulfill you in the most basic form? so i told (adult figure) that i like john green because everything he says sounds wise. he states things simply and yet it leaves so much room for insight. it's like he plants the seeds directly into your brain and it flourishes without any other supplement.

there are a few quotes from the anthropocene review that i already have stuck in my head. one of them was uttered in the introduction. he was explaining that he was "writing in code" all of his career. everything had been some attempt at an elaborate maze to somehow reflect his inner self, turtles all the way down in OCD, the fault in our stars in love, finding alaska in loss, more and more and more. but he said "i realized then that i didn't want to write in code anymore."

it's such an interesting thing to say. "i don't want to write in code anymore." it feels almost like that's the entire point of some writer's existence. to find a most convoluted, secret, labyrinth (haha) composed way of saying "i'm here and i can be beautiful!" but john seemed to be suffocating underneath all of those layers. the layers of labyrinth. and it was even more evident by the fact that there was no veil at all in the introduction. his labyrinthitis was expressly not a metaphor. him talking about labrynthitis was simply not some convoluted, secret, labyrinth composed way to get at some big metaphorical idea. it was something else, something more important, i would say. it was a catalyst.

humans love to say "i was here." the graffiti in pompeii, the graffiti on the table i'm sitting at right now, revolutions, wars, art, the largest buddha ever that bankrupt an entire city by it's weight in copper. we love statements and we hate being forgotten. maybe that's what makes us human. maybe we started using language because we wanted to tell each other that we would not be forgotten. maybe those apes started grumbling at each other and what they meant to say was "i won't forget you, i love you, don't forget me." maybe language is another attempt to not be forgotten. and it stands today, and it's what i'm using to write to you now. i don't want to be forgotten, and i won't forget you, (english teacher.)

[sinuheminem]

book recommendation because i haven’t been able to post lately: Children of Ash and Elm by Neil Price

this book is so. good. it can be a little dense if you’re looking for light reading, but it’s probably the most comprehensive book i’ve ever read about archaeology.

neil price has a really great view of the vikings, and that is that they were human. their beliefs were not myths to them, they were real life. and what i think is most important is that he takes a special interest in portraying vikings as several diverse groups of people who were not simply battle-loving brutes.

if you’re looking on a good viking handbook, i think this is the one.

[sinuheminem]

last post for awhile; this is an essay i wrote for my AP Lang class, about

recursive language’s role in defining language

i wrote a post about this earlier but this is a lot better researched

i am not a reliable source of information. sources in the replies

Humans have a bit of a superiority complex. Between our own species’s social structure and how we interact with other animals, we tend to think that each of us is better, or the best. In fact, 40,000 years ago, homo sapiens killed off the rest of the human species, making us the top of the food chain (Perry.) If asked, many people will say that our ability to speak is what gives us this superiority; our language. However, every species has their own way of communicating, which can be very complex. So what makes human language different from other species’s languages? The most supported idea at present is that complex grammar and recursion are what separates us from other species.

In the context of human versus animal languages, we must define complex grammar. Britannica defines grammar as the “rules of a language governing the sounds, words, sentences, and other elements, as well as their combination and interpretation.” Grammar is an essential part of language, allowing words to accumulate meaning and form more cohesive thoughts. For example, a bird’s mating call is not capable of carrying the same meaning that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speeches did. This is mostly the work of our ability to use complex grammar. While animals may understand sounds that are assigned to ideas or things, they can’t form verb tenses or prepositions – in fact, human languages are distinct for their ability to talk about past or present, and spaces we can’t see. This also gives us the ability to talk about fiction.

According to Chomsky, there are two main categories of grammar, that being phrase-structure grammar (PSG) and finite-structure grammar (FSG). For example, PSG uses an A1A2A3B3B2B1, where the ideas A1, A2, and A3 are repeated by the subsequent B3, B2, and B1. FSG uses the structure A1B1A2B2, where the ideas A1 and A2 are repeated by the subsequent B1 and B2. Eran Asoulin demonstrates these structures with the sentence “The agent saw the man with binoculars.” In PSG, “The agent (A1) who has binoculars (B1) saw (A2) the man (B2).” In FSG, “The agent (A1) saw (B1) the man (A2) who has binoculars (B2).” These two classes of grammar make up the syntax of most, if not all, human languages. Humans can linguistically understand both structures, but not animals; “nonhumans are in a sense stuck in their attempt to interpret patterns based on phrase structure grammars, for they attempt to interpret such patterns on the basis of finite state grammars, which is not possible” (Asoulin, 1).

The defining character that binds FSG and PSG is recursion; the idea that human language has the ability to refer to one idea in another set of ideas. For example, in an A1A2A3B3B2B1 sequence, A1 is repeated by B1, A2 is repeated by B2 and A3 is repeated by B3. Noam Chomsky developed what is called the recursion-only hypothesis, which identifies “that (human language faculties are) restricted to a simple but powerful recursive mapping capability by definition, unique to humans and unique to the language faculty” (Chomsky et al.). Recursion is the main lacking value of non-human verbal languages that limits them from communicating on the same level that humans do. In fact, all human language uses recursion, and the cognitive functions required for using language such as decision making, syntax, and grammar are only present or developed in humans. While it’s clear that animals can understand single words or sounds, due to pattern recognition, they lack the ability to comprehend full sentences due to the absence of recursion.

While animals like songbirds have consistent calls and sounds that mean specific things, they lack the ability to use recursive grammar. This was tested with a group of European starlings by exposing them to phonemes in AAABBB and ABAB sequences. “Here we used eight ‘rattle’ and eight ‘warble’ motifs to create complete ‘languages’ (4,096 sequences) for two distinct grammars: a context-free grammar of the form A2B2 that entails recursive centre-embedding, and a finite-state grammar of the form AB2 that does not” (Gentner et al.). If the birds pecked when correct sequences were uttered, they could identify complex grammar. Nine out of eleven starlings somewhat consistently identified incorrect and correct sequences. This seems to imply that animals outside of homo sapiens are capable of understanding complex grammar, and therefore capable of understanding complex language. The research itself propelled the idea that, if not able to use it, starlings were at least able to learn the basics of PSG and FSG grammar. However, a later group of researchers noticed that the birds seemed to only incorrectly identify sequences if they started with two A’s or when an A is followed by a B and an ; “critics of the starling research have noted that birds could pass the discrimination test without actually computing the embeddings or keeping track of long-distance dependencies” (Traxler et al.). This means that the starlings were not identifying the grammatical function, but they were counting. Since counting is not part of the cognitive functions required for speaking using complex grammar, the study finalized the recursion-only hypothesis.

Animals were ruled out as subjects for learning complex grammar. However, it was necessary to ensure that the recursion-only hypothesis was applicable to all human languages. This is where the Pirahã language becomes particularly interesting. The language has only been studied by one researcher, and is only spoken by about 300 hunter-gatherers in Brazil. When researched, the Pirahã language seems to lack any form of recursion (Traxler et al.). Traxler uses an example sentence; instead of saying “Give me the nails that Dan bought,” which follows a Pirahã speaker would say “Give me the nails. Dan bought the nails. They are the same.” The existence of a human language that doesn’t utilize recursion would defy the recursion-only hypothesis.

Pirahã became a hot topic in linguistics; how could recursion define grammar if some human languages don’t use it? Furthermore, if recursion is not the defining feature of human language, then what is? The possibility that Chomsky could have been wrong created a chasm in the linguistic world; Chomsky’s dedicated haters were affirmed, and his followers were left with a lot to consider. Some scientists postulated that the speakers of Pirahã were compromised cognitively, and as a result, their language was less advanced. The absence of recursion had been attributed to “aspects of the broad language faculty. Specifically, they claim that Pirahã speakers lack the working memory capacity necessary to compute recursion” (Traxler et al.). This assertion raises questions about psycholinguistics, and how our mental capabilities shape the human language. As always, the answer to these questions likely lies in recursion.

The recursion-only hypothesis doesn’t end at grammar. Noam Chomsky built his theory off of the basis of the narrow language faculty (FLN) and the broad language faculty (FLB). The FLB includes processes like decision making, which are vital for survival but aren’t understood to be the basis of language (Chomsky et al.). The FLN includes those most basic foundations of language, and these processes are exclusive to humans. The most important character of the FLN is recursion, which to our knowledge defines language and the FLN as we know it. If recursion is denied as the basis of human language, these faculties are also denied, and language itself remains undefined.

Fortunately, Chomsky came to save the day; he determined that although Pirahã does not express overt recursion in the spoken language, the cognitive abilities – including recursion – that are required for language are all there, and are mentally in use if not overtly (Traxler et al.). This means that both the FLB and FLN processes are in use, but not displayed in verbal language. He also disputes the idea that Pirahã speakers are less advanced, pointing out that their culture lies in strict empiricism, and the lack of overt recursion is a continuation of their avoidance of assumptions. With all of this in mind, Chomsky reminds researchers that Pirahã speakers are not lesser than humans due to their unique language, and maintains recursion as the main component of human language.

Language has gone through a plethora of stages, and with it has come a million definitions. At present, our definition of language lies in two main ideas; grammar and recursion. Empirical research has demonstrated time and time again that human language is scientifically separate from animal language, including studies on the human language itself. We can finalize all of this research into the FLB and FLN categories, in which our defining character of human language lies; recursion.

[sinuheminem]

hello! it’s been a crazy long time, and there’s been a recent discovery of a

maya city!

so let’s talk about it!

i am not a reliable source of information. sources in the replies

three hours prior to writing this, a new york times journalist posted an article titled “In Mexico, Archaeologists Spot a Maya City Behind a Wall of Trees.” spoiler alert, but i jumped out of my seat when i saw it.

the city is a pretty walkable distance from Dos Lagunas, about 15-20 minutes by foot. it had been covered in forest until an aerial scan revealed maya archetypes in the structure beneath the foliage.

the site is estimated to have been home to about 50,000 people at it’s height, about 750-850 AD. one of the biggest current findings is a sinkhole, which led to an apparently collapsed cave system. because of the way the architecture in the city is arranged, it’s speculated to have been built sometime before 150 AD. the entire site, broken up into “blocks” by the researchers there, contains a political center, a residential block, and a sort of dispersed suburb block.

the scientists looking at the area have named it Valeriana, after a nearby lake. in some local research, a few farmers in Dos Lagunas knew all about the sites prior to scientists’s discovery of it.

as for scientists, the site added to the local database of maya cities. the area was assumed to have been densely populated, and this site helps prove that point.

it hasn’t yet been excavated, and i can’t find any evidence that they plan to in the near future. so far, all knowledge is from aerial and lidar scans.

what do you think? :)

[sinuheminem]

a brief history of kissing

i did a small bit of research on this and i am by no means an expert. i’m simply a teenager on the internet who reads books and watches video essays. sources in the replies

under the break

this is something i’ve been wanting to research for a very long time. kissing is such a universal show of affection, and almost every culture around the world does it. some cultures use it more often, like south american and european cultures using cheek kisses as a greeting. other cultures are more conservative, such as north american cultures reserving kisses for those they truly and thoroughly love. kissing is also historically a display of respect, either kissing a person’s hand or feet or the ground in front of them.

the big question is have is why do we kiss, and what benefits does it offer? why has it become so integral in human- and non human- culture?

a good place to start is always the beginning. our first records of kisses date back to 1500 BC. these come from cuneiform manuscripts, which, as always, were shrouded in metaphors. however, dental records suggest kissing occurred as far back as 100,000 years before present. because of this, itms thought that kissing evolved even before humans did. although these are hard and fast evidences, it’s implied that kissing became an every day occurrence by 2000 bc in the middle east.

the next important thing to address is the different kinds of kissing. these are typically divided into two groups: familial and romantic-sexual kissing. familial kissing is attested to by akkadian texts, specifically in friendly greetings or kissing the ground/feet as a display of respect or submission. as for the romantic-sexual kiss, sumerian texts typically refer to kissing in a sexual light. because of this, many cultures at the time (and onward) discourage kissing before marriage. kissing also seemed to be ritualistic in some aspects: sometimes kissing was known to invoke “divine restoration.”

finally, i want to look at the social implications of kissing. even in the earliest texts, kissing is almost always referred to with euphemisms. in early studies about this same topic, research papers even used metaphors extensively. by the 1930’s, a sexual liberation movement occurred in the west. this largely changed the connotations of kissing, and made them somewhat less taboo.

so why do we kiss? it’s been suggested by some scientists that romantic kissing occurs to evaluate a mate: the chemical cues in the saliva or breath of a partner could help understand your partner on a deeper, psychological level. our closest living relatives, bonobos and chimps, sometimes kiss after fighting, probably to restore peace. this is another reason it’s suggested kissing may have evolved before the human genus. beyond this, it’s unclear exactly why we kiss: we’re more familiar with the physiological effects of kissing rather than their causes.

tldr; kissing is an ancient practice, which has some social connotations that make it an almost sacred tradition. kissing may have evolved because we use the chemical cues to evaluate a mate.

[sinuheminem]

archaeology and ethics (not a rant, a question)

under the break

i made a post awhile back about wanting to be an archaeologist but not wanting to be a prt of unethical digs. there was a really good discussion in the replies that covered what about it is unethical and situations where it is ethical

my question, to anyone who sees this and has the proper knowledge, is, is archaeology a possible career to pursue and still upkeep moral standards? as in, would it be obtainable to only work for - or even find - contracts that are in some way justifiable?

[sinuheminem]

the definition of language

i have no formal schooling on this and everything i know is from video essays and various books. i am not a reliable source of information. do your own research.

under the break

recently i made a big long post about microdialects and the dawn of language (and inherently, mankind.) in that post i mentioned that we technically have no hard and fast definition for language, so quite literally anything could be language.

i think there are definitely some things that are more a language than others, but all language is is a specific way of communicating a concept from one thing to another. this include code, chemical processes, mating calls, and of course, language.

what makes human language so much more significant? in a lot of ways, it’s no more developed than other abstract forms of language. the easy answer would be to say that humans often put ourselves before others, because we think our society is better than other forms of society. but i want to look into this more.

i did more research on this than i do most other posts because i don’t trust myself to just speculate with this one (which you shouldn’t do unless you’re a professional anyway.) sources will be in the replies.

a research on the NLM called “What's special about human language? The contents of the "narrow language faculty" revisited” covers the recursion-only hypothesis, which states that the sole reason human language is unique is because of the ability to use grammar concepts that are recurring in different human languages. recursion also covers the idea that these languages can expand on any one concept in an infinite depth. it also included that the main reason human languages are included in the narrow language faculty (i’ll explain what that is in a moment) is because our language comprehension skills are not used in any other category of comprehension, as opposed to other animals and abstract languages.

narrow language faculties and broad language faculties are the two main groups of language, separating complex human languages and abstract or non-human languages. broad language faculties include things like bird calls, physical language (not including sign language), and other abstract languages. while the idea of recursive language is thought to only apply to human language, there are most definitely other languages that it applies to and human language that it may not apply to. however, for the sake of simplicity, this definition provides the largest and most accurate means of identification.

tldr; human language has a very broad definition and we don’t really know what it is. one idea (from an article in the NLM) states that human language is unique because of it’s utilization of grammar and it’s ability to expand on anything to an infinite extent.

it should be noted that, for the most part, there is absolutely nothing in science that fits into the boxes we put them in. even with the definition provided, there are nuances and exceptions that are to be further discussed.

i might go into further depth with more research later, but this is just kind of my own q&a post

[sinuheminem]

microdialects and the dawn of language

this is literally a copy/paste of a yap i did at my boyfriend. i have NO formal schooling on this. do NOT use this as a source of information

under the break

i'm thinking about how every single relationship has it's own microdialect including it's own slang and inside jokes and the use of the microdialect strengthens a relationship because it's quite literally a language unique to you and your friends/partner. think about how many mini languages people took to the stars with them. it's such a sweet way to connect to someone, making up an entirely new way to communicate just for them.

and actually thats how language started in the first place. when ancient human ancestors decided they trusted each other enough, they created entire groups with their own language. that's why language is so important. if someone speaks the same language, we're automatically more likely to trust them. they're a part of our group. so every time a microdialect is made, we're just reestablishing the dawn of language, and inherently the dawn of man.

i think a lot about the dawn of man and language. its so fucking cool. like several times we all decided we trust each other so much that we need our own way to communicate. and then because of that we evolved our palates and teeth and different languages evolve different mouth shapes.

and so when we created language we created what scientists use now to mark the beginning of mankind. because technically there's literally nothing else to separate us from other animals.

and what even is language? theres no hard and fast definition for it. we think we created language but everything right down to gravitational pull is a language. we just followed in their footsteps and made our own languages, and then we made poetry.

i think poetry is a good way to mark humankind. lots of things have language, but very few of them have poetry

[sinuheminem]

informal post about archaeological ethics

archaeology isn’t very ethical

this is kind of a one off post and it’s entirely about my feelings

under the break

i love archaeology and i have since i was a kid. i’ve always wanted to be out excavating or in a lab or something like that. i love everything about archaeology. i love reviving these people, learning who they were, giving them a second life and seeing what we can learn from them. it’s always been my passion, and inherently it’s a pretty emotional process. for most of my life i had my mind dead set on finding a program or company somewhere to work with. but as of late, i’ve kind of been questioning that decision.

it’s not that i don’t want to anymore. it’s still one of my greatest dreams to be an archaeologist, but as for many, i just can’t help but feel guilt or empathy at digging up these people’s grounds, often sacred grounds, knowing there’s a chance that it will be damaged or desecrated or disrespected. i’m not religious myself, but i can imagine how awful that would feel for these ancient people to know their lives and the things they live by have been disturbed.

the worst part is when we’re talking about groups of people who have nobody to speak for them. obviously the native population will often ask for specific measures or for the site to be disregarded entirely (which often it’s still excavated against their wishes,) but for ancient societies with no living relatives, they’re often left without voices to be heard. you can imagine how trivial that is. we have no idea what this means to them, especially not until we’ve already dug everything up and put it in a lab to be observed.

i understand that archaeology is a very important practice, and without some kind of disturbance, we wouldn’t have it at all. but there’s a significant part of me that wants to leave the practice behind almost entirely because of how unethical it inherently is. that’s not to say i won’t continue to study archaeology, but i’m starting to wonder if it would be better for me personally to learn from textbooks rather than dig sites.

in essence, ethics are a very complex subject in the field of archaeology, and i feel that most often archaeological digs are unethical. as careful as we can be, some sites just aren’t meant to be unearthed. which is very unfortunate

[sinuheminem]

i’ve just found out that people don’t know that my username is sinuhe+eminem. several people have called me sinu, which was confusing at first.

username explanation!

with extra nerd sauce

so sinuhe is an author from ancient egypt. you’ll find him in The Epic of Sinuhe, where he sends letters to the king asking for permission to return to the upper crown so he can be buried in his birthplace. in these letters, he also details the grueling travel it took to get there. it really is a heartbreaking read.

theres a line where he says “mine eyes are heavy, mine arms are weak, and mine legs have ceased to follow.” i read that and instantly thought “palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy.”

so there you go. sinuhe + eminem.

[sinuheminem]

anthropology post

cults?

i am not a reliable source of information

under the break

i recently got a follow on my instagram from an account that claimed to be an order of the illuminati. their bio said that “he who controls the current, controls the power.” obviously i blocked the account, but it got me thinking. cults are a lot different today. with our new definition, do we fall into cults the same way people joined cults, like those in ancient greece, or even in the 1400’s during an experimental christian age?

to understand the question, we have to have a definition of a cult. well actually, we have two definitions of a cult: cults as they are today, and cults as they were before pop culture changed how we view things called cults.

in the book Cultish by Amanda Montell (our lord and savior,) she basically explains that cult-like behaviors occur all over the place, from your local gym to the jonestown massacre. the reason this is such an ambiguous term is because once cults became sensationalized, mostly due to the 60’s and the jesus freaks, the word “cult” entered every day vocabulary. this means that our definition of cult is any kind of group that follows one leader and has strict rules that monotonize members, usually in return for “love-bombing” behaviors.

but before the word cult became so popularized, it basically had the same functionality as any typical denomination: a religious sect focusing on one figure, or sometimes an object. not exactly the culty idea we have today.

but if they mean different things, did they function similarly? yes and no. cults “back then” (widely referred to as mystery cults) were typically a part of the wider religion and not explicitly monotheistic. examples of this are the cult of dionysius, in which participants believed in the wider pantheon but put emphasis on dionysius (basically, henotheistic.) this is radically different from new cults, in which members are expected to explicitly worship one entity. additionally, they were kind of seen as religious schools; mystery cults could offer better experience working with a particular entity and the religion in general rather than the normal citizen worship. additionally, new cults have the motto “a person who’s in a cult doesn’t know they’re in a cult.” mystery cults were very deliberate and intentional, and required intense schooling.

they were in a lot of ways similar though. mystery cults offered a strong sense of community and importance, much like new cults. they also required devotion and secrecy, which was pretty sketchy to outsiders and later frowned upon (again, like new cults.)

so back to the initial question: did people fall into mystery cults the way we fall into new cults? sort of, kind of, a little bit.

mystery cults did serve a lot of the same functions as new cults: they provided, at least for awhile, a better sense of self; they provided community; they were very secret; they required members to be devoted. but mystery cults were also typically far less malicious. even as secret as they were, they really only did so out of necessity. as christianity spread and killed off religions in it’s path, many cults arose in order to sanctify and preserve ancient rites and practices. the best way to do this is to confine your cult to one entity or one god. it would be really hard for one teacher to teach every single ritual.

so basically what i’m saying is, mystery cult leaders were essential workers and new cult leaders are not. with that being said, no, we do not enter old cults the same as new ones.

[sinuheminem]

INTRO POST :3

this is a blog where i get really autistic about general anthropology! this typically means archaeology and linguistics, but can include basically any field of anthropology.

DISCLAIMER

i am not a reliable source of information. i do not have much formal schooling on this. all of my knowledge is from textbooks and video essays. do your own research.

info about me!

i use he/they pronouns! if you have a problem with this, fuck all the way off!

i plan to go to college for general anthropology with a focus on historical linguistics and archaeology :3

i know some latin and i’m working on spanish! i plan to learn gaelic or hebrew someday :)

just so you know. i am a minor. be normal. dni if you are a nsfw blog.

my other blogs! •w•

my main blog is jalbert-james. i post all of my thoughts here and it is unorganized and crazy, but if you scroll far enough you can find more of my old archaeology rants that i was too lazy to post here!

i have a guitar blog called oldmandiddlerer where i occasionally post videos of me playing guitar!