[MUSIC PLAYING]
SARAH PARCAK: Thank you.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So
maybe we can just
start with your perspective
on why archaeology
is important today in 2019.
SARAH PARCAK: So
obviously, the world
is facing a number of
challenges right now politically
with the rise of nationalism,
with climate change.
And I think what archaeology
shows us first and foremost is
that we exist as the
distillation of the hundreds,
if not many thousands, of
cultures that came before us.
And what archaeology does is
it celebrates the diversity
of cultures around the world.
And when we excavate, I tell
people we dig to not find
but to find out.
And we more often than not find
a mirror reflecting so many
of the current
issues and challenges
that we're facing today.
So it's why I think
archaeology is so important.
When we're dealing with
all these big issues today,
they seem overwhelming.
But when we look at the
arc of our trajectory,
I think we gain insights
into our resilience
and our creativity.
And that can help
give us a path ahead.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So you
mentioned that archaeology
can be a mirror.
What does it tell us about
where we come from, what we are,
and where we're going?
SARAH PARCAK: One of my
favorite examples to share,
there's that inscription in
the Western desert of Egypt
from roughly 3,300 years ago.
And I'm going to paraphrase
slightly for you,
but this is the
rough gist of it.
There's a gentleman who
writes an inscription,
and he says, I came out
here, and I got super drunk.
And I'm so busted
because there's
no way I'm going to be able
to show up at work tomorrow.
My boss is going to kill me.
From thousands of
years ago, right?
And our common humanity
has not evolved
in hundreds of thousands
of years, right?
In spite of all
this technology, I
tell people the
ancient Egyptians were
the first people
that wrote on walls
and obsessed about cats, right?
It's not just us today.
So I think I don't know if that
should give us hope or despair.
But I think it says a lot
about kind of who we are
and that whether we're
struggling with issues
of our family, whether
we're dealing with issues
about our work, whether we're
worried about our future, what
we're asking big questions about
what happens to us after we
die, there are things that
we've been wrestling with for so
many thousands of years.
And archaeologists
are constantly
asking these
questions, and that's
why I think it does have
so much relevance for us.
ALEX IMMERMAN: What does it
tell us about where we're going?
SARAH PARCAK: So
I've been spending
a lot more time thinking
about this because I'm often
asked, all right, are we
going to make it, right?
Because it's hard.
It's hard with all the
challenges we're facing.
It's hard with all the
issues we're contending with,
especially with climate change.
And I think what
archaeology shows
us is that in times of
crisis, more often than not,
we tend to come together.
I think when I study periods
of time, like ancient Egypt,
and they went through a big
climate crisis 4,200 years ago,
what's fascinating is a lot
of the money and power went
to the provinces, right?
So there was greater
income equality.
And I think that says
a lot about where
we are today and the idea
that if we can fix this income
inequality challenge,
we've got a chance of kind
of getting through the
challenges we're facing.
So I think it can
give us some hope.
I think it can give us
some needed perspective.
Because if we're stuck, if we're
afraid, we can't move ahead.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So how is that
different from what archaeology
told us, say, 10 years ago?
How are these additional layers
of analysis being grafted on?
SARAH PARCAK: Well,
in archaeology,
if you imagine a puzzle, and the
puzzle is the complete totality
of our sum human knowledge,
right, of every civilization
that ever existed
before us, we're
dealing with a few specks
on one puzzle piece, right?
How can we possibly
tell the story?
And the technology that
my colleagues and I
have been using have radically
scaled up our ability to map
not just one site or 10
sites, but tens of thousands
of archaeological
sites around the world.
So if you look, for example,
at the work my colleagues are
doing in Central
America using LIDAR
to map beneath the dense
rainforests of Guatemala,
they've been able to
find tens of thousands
of archaeological sites.
And we are probably
within a decade
of getting a complete map of
the entire ancient Maya world.
So for the first time, we
have this complete picture
of what that world looked like.
And we're going to be
able to ask so many more
informed and nuanced
questions because we
have more information.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So you
described archaeology
as studying the totality
of human history
that's preserved today.
That's a big question.
It's a big topic of study.
How are we increasing our
ability to tap into that?
SARAH PARCAK: I think
science is the way ahead.
It's not just satellite
imagery that's
allowing us to map all of
these archaeological sites,
but new advances in dating.
The more you go back
in time, the more
your kind of plus or
minus error ranges.
And more and more
refined dating techniques
allow us to say yes, this event
happened x thousand years ago,
plus or minus to a greater
degree of certainty.
We're doing all
sorts of amazing work
now with DNA and DNA
studies, and looking
at things like migration.
And while that certainly
comes with its own set
of ethical challenges,
we're understanding now how,
and when, and why
groups of people
moved, and shifted, and
changed throughout time.
So we're able to get a better
sense of where we came from.
So also of course, things like
machine learning, big data,
they're allowing us to process
a lot more imagery with a higher
degree of accuracy.
So I think science
is allowing us
to make these big discoveries
much, much faster.
ALEX IMMERMAN: And
where do you see
that taking the field over
the next five or 10 years?
SARAH PARCAK: So I am a
huge science fiction nerd,
and I grew up reading Asimov and
Clarke and now today, Jemisin
and so many others.
So I have an entire
chapter in my book
where I invent
what archaeology is
going to be like in 100 years.
And the character in the
book is exploring a site,
and he has these little
things called dig bots, where
it sort of releases--
so please someone
here invent dig bots.
I'll totally work
with you on that.
And they go out and
they're digging,
and he's sending out
little miniature drones.
And they're mapping
sites more quickly.
And then all the information
gets collated together.
But the point of
all the work isn't
for study on planet Earth.
It's actually to create a
framework for studying life
on other planets.
And so I think all these
advances in technology--
and I say in the book, this is
going to happen in 100 years,
but I think it actually
is going to happen
much faster than that.
With all this
massive information,
what new questions are we
going to be able to ask,
and how will that inform our
exploration of other worlds?
ALEX IMMERMAN: So
why did you include
these sci-fi and historical
fictional passages in the book?
SARAH PARCAK: So
archaeologists, at our core,
we're storytellers.
And the joke in archaeology
is one stone is a stone.
Two stones is a feature.
And three stones makes a
wall when you're excavating.
And four stones of
course is a palace.
So we're trying to
recreate these worlds
with a teeny tiny
fraction of the data.
And what reading science fiction
did for me as a child is it
opened my mind to the
possibility of hundreds
of different worlds, and ways
of existing, and ways of being.
And when you're dealing with
archaeological information,
I tell people.
It's like, when you're reading
Shakespeare in high school
and college, that was just a
couple of hundred years ago,
and the language
is really foreign.
Imagine going back
thousands of years.
So science fiction
has allowed me
to imagine all the different
ways that these action
cultures could have existed.
And I think it's made me be
much more empathetic when
I'm dealing with the past.
I don't judge.
I just take things
as I find them.
So yeah, I encourage my graduate
students and any students
of archaeology today, don't
just study archaeology,
but read widely.
Because at the end of the day,
you're recreating lost worlds,
and that's what these sci-fi
writers did and still do.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So you talked
about stones, features, walls.
How do you define an
archaeological site?
SARAH PARCAK: So
this is a big debate
in the archaeological world,
what is an archaeological site.
Is it a single potsherd
or a flint tool
that you find in the forest?
Or is it a large massive
multi-period site
with temples, and
tombs, and pyramids?
And most archaeologists
will tell you,
obviously that the big site with
the temples and other features,
that's a site.
But how big does something
have to be to be a site?
In general, people in
my field define things
as it's a site if it's
an activity area where
a past person did a thing.
Maybe someone camped out for
a night and made a flint tool.
Maybe someone hunted somewhere
and butchered an animal.
And that's a site.
So you have everything
from little tiny activities
to massive sites.
And to us, it's all important.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So how
does that definition
change what it means in
terms of the number of sites
in the world and how
important they are?
SARAH PARCAK: So to us, a
wall, a pyramid, or a tomb
is incredibly important.
It's all the little
bits and pieces, right?
Because that's what
tells us what life
was like, whether it's
200 years ago, or 2,000,
or 20,000 years ago.
And I'm more of a
settlement archaeologist,
so I'm interested in the
daily life of past peoples.
And while certainly
finding a new tomb
in the Valley of the Kings
like Tut would be amazing,
that's not going to tell me as
much about daily life in Egypt
in the same time as if I
excavate small houses at a more
minor regional site.
So to me, it's important.
I estimate in my book--
I could be wildly wrong--
that I think that
there are potentially
50 million archaeological sites
around the world left to find.
And I think I
underestimated by a lot.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So that's
a really big number.
How do we go about mapping
them, and why is it
important to do that?
SARAH PARCAK: Most
countries in the world
don't have really good
archaeological site databases.
I think in England,
there's something
like 100 or 150,000 sites,
and of course, the Brits
have mapped all their sites.
That's part of their tradition.
But even in the US, how
many archaeological sites
are in the US?
I don't know.
Biologists are able to tell you
exactly how many species there
are of a particular thing,
and I can't tell you
how many known archaeological
sites there are in the world.
And if you can't map it
and you don't know where
it is, how can you protect it?
So in the face of rising
water, in the face
of so much development, if we
don't map these sites, if we
don't identify
where they are, we
can't begin to
put plans in place
to protect them for the future.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So tell
us a little bit about how
the mapping takes place.
SARAH PARCAK: So
in archaeology, we
go from the known
to the unknown.
So typically, I'll start out.
If I'm working in
an area where I
don't have as much
experience, I'll
look at the area in
Google Earth just
to get a sense of what's
there, what it looks like.
If it's a culture with which
I'm not particularly familiar,
my team and I will look
at hundreds and hundreds
of known examples of the
features or archaeological site
types that we might encounter.
And that's before we even
look at what satellite imagery
we might order.
At that point, we say, OK, are
we collaborating with a team?
What's all their peer
reviewed publication?
Like, we read it over.
And at that point, we begin
to say what kind of imagery
do we need and
what time of year.
Because some sites
show up really
well in the fall when it's dry.
Some sites show up really well
in the spring when it's wet.
Then we'll download
or order the imagery.
Sometimes we get
imagery from NASA.
Sometimes we get imagery from a
company like Maxar Technologies
or DigitalGlobe if we need
high resolution imagery.
And then we'll process it
using standard off the shelf
remote sensing software.
It's the same stuff
that biologists
will use to look
at animal habitats
or climate scientists
will look at
to measure the melting
polar ice caps.
And at that point, once
we've processed it and tried
to pull out as much
information as possible,
and we think we see features
that look like known features,
we'll share those with
our colleagues and say,
hey, I think we
found 23 features.
What do you think?
ALEX IMMERMAN:
That's really cool.
So tell us a little
bit about how
you think about the technology.
So you could use satellites, or
aerial photography, or drones.
Why do you choose one
tool versus another?
SARAH PARCAK: I'll use anything
that I can get my hands
on ideally if it's free.
[LAUGHS] That's a great
price for archaeologists.
We're very lucky
that NASA, they've
released all their imagery
to the world for free.
It tends to be
coarser resolution,
so most NASA satellite
data has a resolution
of between 15 and
30 meters a pixel.
So while that's not great for
identifying discrete features
on sites, it allows you to
identify entire sites if you're
looking at large landscapes.
And DigitalGlobe has a
database of millions of images.
And you can typically
get an image
of a site for
maybe $200 or $300.
Excuse me.
So I'll use NASA data.
I'll use DigitalGlobe data.
And then once we're
on the site, we'll
use drone imagery, any kind of
historic aerial photography.
It's always best
when you can use
multiple data sets to
analyze the site because one
image usually doesn't do it.
ALEX IMMERMAN: Got it.
So you shared some anecdotes
about your experiences
in the field and the importance
of a hypothesis driven
approach, especially
with such a huge data
set and possible
combinations of explanations
for various phenomena
that you observe.
Can you tell us
more about how you
move from this site looks
potentially interesting to I
should go there and take a look?
SARAH PARCAK: So when
we choose a site,
or rather, when we're
presented with an opportunity
for collaboration, we'll ask
the project director, OK,
what are you interested in?
And they'll say I'm
interested in looking
at how the site was abandoned
circa 4,000 years ago.
Or if it's a site in
Egypt, how and why
did this site grow in
prominence in the New Kingdom
imperial period?
So we always start
with the question.
And that drives the
approaches that we
take in terms of analyzing
the data or the information.
It could be as well, if
we're looking at a landscape,
we know that there are
probably Viking sites here,
but no one's ever found
a Viking site here.
So let's see what might be here.
So we always work
with collaborators.
In Egypt, of course, I'm
very lucky I've worked there
for a very long time.
But it just depends on what my
colleagues are interested in.
ALEX IMMERMAN: Can you
tell us a little bit more
about collaborating with
the various local parties?
So be it governments, scholars,
other types of researchers.
SARAH PARCAK: Yeah,
archaeology has not necessarily
done the best job in its past.
There's been obviously
a lot of colonialism.
And so what we try to
do when we collaborate
with governments is--
I should say they
have organization
around global explorers
going to India next.
We started in Peru.
And what we do when we meet
officials from governments is
we never tell them
what they need.
We always ask, what
are your problems?
What are you solving for?
And so for example, when
we met with officials
from India's Archaeological
Survey, which
is their main
cultural body, they
said, well, look, we
have a big challenge
with monitoring our sites.
We don't really have a good
baseline of archaeological site
health.
We need an overall site map.
So we then shared
with them the range,
almost like a menu of options,
that they could choose from.
And they told us
what they wanted.
And so as we're
designing our platform
or designing our
project approaches,
we make sure to work with key
stakeholders in countries.
And that that has
been incredibly
useful for solidifying
long term partnerships.
ALEX IMMERMAN: In the
book, you talked a lot
about protecting sites,
particularly from looting.
Can you tell us more
about where does
that fit on government
priorities versus research
priorities?
How is that informing what
you decide to focus on?
SARAH PARCAK: So post 2011,
so with the Arab Spring,
we saw a huge spike in looting
in Egypt and across the Middle
East.
And what my colleagues
and I have come to realize
is that organizations like
ISIL are using the proceeds
from the sale of
archaeological antiquities
to help fund
terrorist activities.
And they're not
getting as much money
from it as, say, the
legal sale of oil.
But it's definitely helping
to fuel their efforts.
So the idea that we can
track looting and identify
where it's going on and
then share that information
with organizations
like Homeland Security,
I should say this is
the one good thing
I think they do without being
overtly political at present.
Their job is to track things
coming into the country.
And their biggest
challenge is something
called probable cause.
So if they see a container
that's full of antiquities,
and they go, wait a minute.
OK, there's looting in Egypt.
This looks really sketchy.
And they go to a judge to
get a warrant for a search
and seizure.
The judge will say, well,
what's your probable cause?
Can you prove that this
material is likely looted?
And that's where someone like
me would come in and say,
actually, yes, in Egypt,
I can show looting
at almost 300
archaeological sites.
They claim it's Middle Kingdom.
Here are eight Middle Kingdom
sites that have been looted.
Then the judge can say,
yep, totally likely
that this is looted.
And that can help Homeland
Security do their job better.
But it's a major
issue, and we're just
trying to give governments
better information.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So today,
are you able to see
I think it might have come
from this particular site,
and even repatriate looted
goods in certain cases?
SARAH PARCAK: It's hard.
If you're dealing with, say,
a little scarab or a pot,
yes, OK, it's from
this time period.
Here are 20 sites that
it could come from.
But one case which--
and I'm not making up
the name-- it was called
Operation Mummy Curse, which
it may be the coolest
thing I ever do in my life.
Anyway, working with
Homeland Security,
they've made a bust of this
gorgeous sarcophagus that
had been sawed in half and sent
through the postal service,
dating to around
2,600 years ago.
And I got to visit
the sarcophagus.
It was of a woman, of an
elite priestess or singer
from a Ptolemaic period
site somewhere in Egypt.
And in visiting her, I
could see her eyes were
very shiny and
sparkly, and there was
a lot of silicates or sands--
it's bits of sand in her eyes.
So using all the looting
information that I had--
300 sites, there were 20 that
had Ptolemaic period looting.
There were five that
were from the desert,
and sort of a
narrowing down process,
we were able to figure out
with a pretty high degree
of likelihood of
where she came from.
ALEX IMMERMAN: Wow,
that's fascinating.
So, and I'd imagine
that the tools that we
have at our disposal
are only increasing.
And in fact, in the
book, you mentioned
that given the rate of
progress in the field,
you waited until the very last
minute to write your forward,
so you could include the
most up to date information.
So how much progress
has been made?
Can you give us a
feel for how much
it's changed over the
last five, 10, 15 years?
SARAH PARCAK: Our
ability to map sites
has increased in the
thousands of percents,
just with country wide mapping
with the use of machine
learning.
Now we're able to
map features on sites
or entire archaeological sites
in a matter of weeks or months
where before, it
would take us years.
So as the technology advances,
as we incorporate machine
learning, as we bring in the
crowd with the citizen science
platform that I run, I imagine
our ability to map sites
is only going to improve.
ALEX IMMERMAN: And what do you
think the next big innovation
will be?
SARAH PARCAK: The
next big innovation
I think will be more
autonomous drone mapping.
So the idea of attaching all
these multi and hyper spectral
sensors that I use
from satellites,
we're putting them on drones.
So right now,
maybe on a site, we
can see the outline
of a settlement.
Or on a site, we can
see a single tomb.
But imagine getting
a high resolution
map of every single thing that's
on that archaeological site.
Now of course, you
don't want this data
getting in the wrong hands.
We take data security
pretty seriously.
But then what governments can
do with all this information
is prioritize what
sites they want
to either excavate or protect.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So what can
we do to protect these sites?
SARAH PARCAK: Every
government around the world
has its own rules and
regulations around sites.
Some countries like
Egypt, of course,
rely very heavily on
these sites for tourism
that comprises the bulk
of Egypt's economy.
And so protecting sites is of
the utmost concern to them.
And if you get caught
looting in Egypt,
the penalties are pretty stiff.
You'll go to jail
for years and years.
Other countries, they're
contending with all manner
of issues and challenges.
So protecting sites
is not necessarily
on their list of priorities.
So all we can do is
share the data with them
and let the governments
make those decisions.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So what
are the other threats
to archaeological sites?
SARAH PARCAK: The
primary threat to sites
is probably development.
Looting is a big
problem, but it's
one thing if a site's looted,
and there are a couple hundred
looting pits.
That's bad.
Versus a hotel coming in and
bulldozing an entire site,
then it's gone forever.
Most sites are looted.
Most sites, even King
Tut's tomb was looted
when Howard Carter found it.
A lot of people don't know that.
It was not 100% intact.
So I think making
governments aware
that these cultural
treasures represent
tens, if not
hundreds of millions
of dollars, to their
governments for tourism.
I think that's something
I and my colleagues
are trying to do
to raise awareness,
to say they should
probably map them.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So tell us a
little bit about GlobalXplorer.
SARAH PARCAK: So yes.
So in 2016, after I won that
TED Prize, which is $1 million--
I couldn't use that money
for anything personal.
It was a grant.
So I did not buy a private
island or anything, not even
a pencil.
So I used 100% of the money
to found GlobalXplorer.
So we're a 501(c)(3).
And the organization or the
purpose of GlobalXplorer
is to use innovative
technologies
to help map and protect
archaeological sites
around the world.
So we built GlobalXplorer
which is a citizen
science crowdsourcing
platform that allows anyone
in the world to look
at satellite imagery
and help find sites.
To date, we've had--
the numbers keep going up.
I think we're up to
88,000 or 89,000 users
from 120 countries.
We're missing, like,
Greenland and North Korea.
If any of you know Dennis
Rodman and we can get him
an iPad, like Kim
Jong Un can use it,
it'd be great to get North
Korea on the platform.
But our users today
have found almost 20,000
potential archaeological sites.
And over 700 of them
are major, major sites.
And I'm really, really
excited to share with you.
So for us, mapping
sites is one thing,
but empowering
local archaeologists
to do their work even better is,
to me, the most exciting part
of what we're doing.
And we gave our
crowdsourced data
to an amazing archaeologist,
Louis Jaime Castillo,
who, a couple
weeks ago, just got
named Peru's
Minister of Culture.
And he took his drones out
to map some of the sites
and as a sort of side part
of the project, ended up
finding 50 new Nazca Lines
in the Nazca region of Peru.
So the idea that
archaeologists who
know best can take
our information
and then take it to the next
level is very exciting for me.
ALEX IMMERMAN: Can you
tell us a little bit more
about the crowdsourcing
and how that's helpful?
SARAH PARCAK: So
most of the work
that I do, like 99.99%
of the work that I do
is just staring at imagery
and staring at imagery.
I mean, this is science.
Science is not exciting for most
of the time, as you all know.
And most of what I do
doesn't work because that's
the way science works.
The idea that we can batch
process loads of imagery,
and then put it on our
platform, and the crowd
can go through really,
really quickly--
I mean, they're
given a tutorial.
We have redundancies built
in, so a minimum of six people
need to agree on a single
image before it gets kicked out
to us.
And five out of six people have
to agree that that thing is
indeed a thing.
And our crowd has
about an 85% accuracy
rate in terms of identifying
sites and features.
And so that's not
that much worse
than we professional
remote sensing experts.
And now we're building in
machine learning component,
so that the crowd will be able
to look through the imagery
much faster and look at
prioritized data sets.
So our goal, as crazy
as it may sound,
is to map the whole world
in the next 10 years.
ALEX IMMERMAN: That's
an ambitious goal.
Right?
SARAH PARCAK: No big deal.
[LAUGHTER]
ALEX IMMERMAN: It's a good goal.
So at Google here, we spend
a lot of time thinking
about how machine
learning and how
AI will shape the world around
us and impact the way we work.
Can you tell us
a little bit more
about how it'll
influence GlobalXplorer
and how you think about
enablement versus automation?
SARAH PARCAK: So I get
asked about machine
learning it seems
like at least once
a day by someone in my inbox.
And so doing the super
refined analyses using
different parts of
the light spectrum
and using the
software that I use,
it's really hard
to do and get right
unless you have a
pretty good sense
of what archaeological
features are there.
So that's one bucket
versus the large scale
analysis of entire landscapes
and prioritizing specific tiles
or regions where there
could be a looting
pit or a potential
archaeological feature.
I think that's the real
strength of machine learning
for the work that we're doing.
Because even though there are
50 million archaeological sites
I think around
the world, there's
40 million square kilometers
of searchable land.
And so that's a lot of land
where there isn't anything.
And so how can we mash that down
to the tiny percentage of land
where there could be
sites or features?
And I think as the
crowd identifies sites
that the machine
has prioritized,
that then goes back
into the machine.
It trains it, and it's going
to get better over time.
ALEX IMMERMAN: So what are
the most important lessons
for Googlers here and
viewers all over the world
to take away from your
approach and your experience
with space archaeology?
SARAH PARCAK: That
archaeology is fluid.
It's science, so our ideas
are constantly changing.
Our perceptions are
constantly changing.
I'm sure you all
see the headlines
it seems like every
week, whether it's
a study in science or nature or
the proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
Earliest domestication of cat,
or dog, or beer, or whatever,
right?
And this is the story
is always changing.
It seems like maybe it
was about a month ago
new evidence of
Homo sapiens were
found in Greece, which shows
an early migration track out
of Africa.
So we're not so
much a family tree
as a dense forest of bushes.
And I think that says a
lot about how and why we've
evolved to be the way we are.
So I think more data is better.
But what types of
questions are we
going to be asking about
the archaeological record
and how can we use that to shape
everything we're contending
with today with so much
going on with climate change,
as well as potential
life in other world?
So I guess that's
what I want everyone
to leave with the
sense of how rapidly
the field of archaeology
is evolving with all
these new technologies.
And that I think in spite of
all the amazing things that
have been found in
the last 100 years
or even in the
last decade, we are
in the middle of a golden age
of archaeological discovery.
And I think you're going to see
some of the biggest discoveries
ever made in the next decade.
ALEX IMMERMAN: That's
exciting as well.
How can we get
involved as individuals
viewing at home, as Googlers,
as interested parties?
What can we do?
SARAH PARCAK: So definitely
go to globalxplorer.org.
So that's X as an
X marks the spot.
It's a totally free platform.
So we joke that we designed it
for kids between five and 105.
And we've actually, some
of our best super users
have been elders.
There's a woman named Doris
May Jones who's from Cleveland,
Ohio, and she's 92 years old.
And she has looked at tens of
thousands of satellite images.
Like, she's the
best person ever.
I want to be Doris
when I grow up.
So anyway, definitely
sign up for the platform.
Get involved.
ALEX IMMERMAN: I'm curious what
your favorite thing that you
found is, not necessarily,
like, historically significant
or whatever, but just
personally your favorite thing.
SARAH PARCAK: My favorite
thing would be my husband.
[LAUGHS] I can actually say I
discovered my husband in a hole
in the ground.
I don't think there are
too many people that
can say they discovered
their partner in a hole
in the ground.
I met him in Egypt 20
years ago this summer.
And yeah, he will
always be my greatest
archaeological discovery, so.
AUDIENCE: Hi, thank
you so much for coming.
When I was reading about
you and the book online,
one of the things I
read was that when
you look at
archaeology from space,
you don't see any borders.
Because borders are a new thing.
So I would love to hear what
one of your most interesting
observations of people movement
or archaeological sites
that you've seen
that currently spans
across the border
that's a border
today, but wasn't in the past.
SARAH PARCAK: So yes.
So the effect to
which she's referring
is known as the overview
effect, or the astronaut effect.
And most astronauts, in fact,
all astronauts that I've seen
interviewed that have been on
the Space Station come back
just very wide eyed because
they go around the Earth however
many times--
I think 16 plus times in a day.
And you really genuinely
don't see any borders.
You see how interconnected
and fragile our world is.
And in so many instances,
these ancient cultures
went across multiple
modern borders.
So I think, for example,
of ancient Egypt.
And it extended in the
past into modern day Sudan.
And there are so many temples
and other archaeological sites
that are in northern Sudan
that were clearly very ancient
Egyptian.
I think of civilizations like
those in ancient Mesopotamia,
so the Assyrians.
Just, they're
extending massively
across so many different places.
So it's challenged me to
rethink sort of modern politics,
and modern borders
and place names,
and how and why are things
named the way they are.
Because in so many
places still, there's
a sense of connection that
has nothing whatsoever to do
with modern borders.
More often than not,
of course politicians
put borders to
separate and take power
away from marginalized groups.
AUDIENCE: I am going
to ask on behalf
of my 15-year-old daughter
who loves everything
archaeology, history, medical.
If you can think back of
some of your previous finds,
is there anything that has
impacted the medical field
and the way that
medicine has been changed
based on some of the
information that you've
been able to obtain?
SARAH PARCAK: Medicine,
there's a whole sort
of subfield of
archaeology that looks
at whether it's medical
instrumentation, or cures,
or operations.
And there's a papyrus in
ancient Egypt called the Harris
papyrus.
And for years and
years, Egyptologists
thought that this is kind of
the medical encyclopedias that
were talking about all
these different operations
and procedures.
But my colleagues
have done research.
And I'm pretty convinced
by what they found.
It's not a medical
manual per se.
It's a battlefield
triage document.
So all the procedures
that are discussed in it
are things that doctors
could take into the field
and use them to kind of quickly
treat wounds on battlefields.
It turns out medical
knowledge in ancient Egypt
was considered sacred and
something that would have
been taught at the temples.
So I think what
archaeology is showing us--
and I can speak
much more to Egypt--
there's so much
nuance in the way
past cultures dealt
with medical issues.
And there's so many
terms and phrases
that we don't understand
from ancient Egyptian.
They would refer to
the [INAUDIBLE] plant.
What's the [INAUDIBLE] plant?
I don't know, but here
are its properties.
So I think ancient
cultures' medical knowledge
was far more
advanced than I think
we appreciate or understand.
You look at, for example,
in South America, in Peru,
the idea of trephination.
So in a battle, if someone
bopped you on the head
and you had a skull
fracture, unless you
relieve that pressure,
you're in big trouble.
You'll probably die from
swelling and inflammation.
But they would open
the skull, they
would carve out
the affected bone,
and then put the skin back on.
And we have dozens and
dozens of instances where
it's obvious the patient lived.
And this is pretty
serious surgery.
So I think yeah.
I think with the
more that we learn,
especially the more that
physical anthropologists learn
from studying bones,
I think the more
we realize how much the
ancient cultures knew.
And yes, some of it could end
up impacting modern medicine.
AUDIENCE: Well, thank you
for sharing your worlds
and your passion with us.
I can literally see it
beaming off of your face
when you talk about
this, and I love that.
My question for you is I'd
love to hear your take on what
you think the most impactful
facet of evolution we've
made as humans so far from
the many, many data sets
and everything you've seen.
And how can we as
collective individuals
continue to move the needle
on that path of evolution
in that specific facet?
SARAH PARCAK: That's
a great question.
So I'm going to draw on the
work that my current department
chair, Doug Frye, has done.
He's an anthropologist,
but he's drawing a lot
of archaeological information.
And he's studied a lot
of modern hunter gatherer
and other indigenous
groups around the world
and looked at
archaeological evidence.
And what he has put
forth as a hypothesis--
and this has been in science
in lots of peer review
journals-- is that prior
to us moving into cities,
we were inherently peaceful.
While we had conflict and
we fought because I mean,
that's who we are as
humans-- we have conflict--
there were no wars.
So the idea that
we as humans are
inherently violent
and prone to violence
and prone to significant
conflict I think is baloney.
It's not who we are.
It's who we've become.
So I think given all the tension
in the world today, to me,
I take great comfort from this.
And it's very
controversial, by the way.
This is not something that's
readily accepted in my field.
But I've read Doug's work.
I've looked at a lot of
archaeological sites.
And we became more violent
when we were pushed together
in close proximity.
And I think that the other
lesson we can take from this,
we ask often why is there
so much fighting online?
Why on Twitter,
for example, do we
see the worst
versions of humanity?
You may see people
saying things there
that you wouldn't see otherwise.
And our reactions aren't good.
And my theory, which has
not been proven, or tested,
or written about, just
my general theory,
we're used to hashing it
out over the campfire.
While we may of push
each other around,
seeing someone eye to
eye kind of calms us down
and makes us behave.
But we have this radical
fight or flight instinct.
And it's like Twitter has put
us in this virtual city where
we're prone to violence, but our
violence takes place with words
that we write.
So I think we have a lot
more understanding to do
and a lot more
information that we
can gain from anthropologists,
from our study
of the archaeological
record, especially
as we shift into this new
digital age and interacting
online.
It's not who we are.
But these social media
platforms are not
designed for how far
we've evolved as humans.
We're not evolved
for social media.
And I'm saying
that to the world.
[LAUGHS]
So yes.
So I think the idea, though,
of using this information,
of taking this
archaeological information,
of understanding
where we've come from,
that when we lived in East
Africa hundreds of thousands
of years ago, we cooperated
in communities, we took care
of each other, that's here.
That's still there.
That's deep, deep,
deep down inside.
And the more that
we understand that,
I think that can give
us a little bit of hope
to where we might go and
hopefully move us away
from so much of this conflict
and aggression that's
driving so many of the
issues in our world.
AUDIENCE: How do you
define when to reconstitute
an archaeological site
versus when to leave it
in its ruined state?
SARAH PARCAK: At
the end of the day,
we get our permits from
foreign governments.
And we always have to abide by
their rules and regulations.
So I can't just show up in
Egypt and go, this site is cool.
I think I'll work here.
As much as I'd like
to in my head do that.
I've been working with
the Egyptian government
for 20 years.
If I'm interested
in a site, I'll
sit carefully with colleagues.
And I won't even apply to
work at that site for years
because I've got to build
up the relationships.
And they need to
understand that I'm
doing a hypothesis driven
approach to the site.
So I think we very
carefully excavate.
To dig is to destroy.
And I think ultimately,
when we work on a site,
it's not like we're
digging up the whole site.
We're only ever digging
a tiny part of the site.
And especially at the
site where I'm working now
at [INAUDIBLE],, which
dates to 3,800 years ago,
we've excavated a tomb.
And now we're shifting
into conservation.
So we're carefully
reconstructing it.
We're putting in
modern mud brick
to help prevent
further degradation.
So for us, as we dig, it's
never about just the digging.
It's about what are we doing
to help conserve and protect.
And I think those two things
have to go side by side when
you're working on a site.
Otherwise, it's not an ethical
approach to excavation.
And ultimately,
it's always going
to be up to the
local stakeholders
to make those
decisions about kind
of what should be protected
and preserved on site.
ALEX IMMERMAN: Sarah, thank
you for joining us today.
SARAH PARCAK: Thank you.
This has been awesome.
Thank you, guys.
[APPLAUSE]
