The Record of the Past.pdf

8/9/2019 The Record of the Past.pdf

1/25

The Record of the Past Archaeological ResearchDating Methods

Answering QuestionsPaleoanthropologicalStudy

Interpretations Aboutthe Past

C H A P T E R

O U T L I N E


2/25

By the late eighteenth century, scholars started tomove beyond the simple description of objects to anincreasing appreciation of the significance of fossil re-mains and the material traces of ancient human societ-ies. This appreciation fell within the context of a hostof new observations in the natural sciences, including

many about the geological record and the age of theEarth. In 1797, an English country gentleman named John Frere published an account of some stone tools hehad found in a gravel quarry in Suffolk. Although brief,the description is tantalizing in terms of the changing at-titude toward traces of the past. Fossilized bones of ex-tinct animals and s tone tools—actually Paleolithic handaxes—were found at a depth of more than twelve feetin a layer of soil that appeared undisturbed by morerecent materials. Frere correctly surmised that the tools

were “from a very remote period indeed, even beyondthat of the present world” (Daniel 1981:39). This was arecognition of prehistoric archaeology.

The nineteenth century saw the first fossil findsof ancient human ancestors. They included the bonesfound in the Neanderthal Valley of Germany in 1856,now recognized as an archaic human species, Homoneanderthalensis , or Neandertal man (see Chapter 5).

Although this was a historic discovery, the signifi-cance of the fossils was not realized at the time.

Interpretations were diverse. Some scholarscorrectly interpreted the finds as an earlyhuman ancestor, but others variously dis-missed the bones as those of a Cossack sol-

dier, an elderly Dutchman, a powerfully builtCelt, or a pathological idiot (Trinkaus andShipman, 1993)! Information continued to

accumulate, however, and by the end ofthe nineteenth century, the roots of mod-ern archaeological and paleoanthropo-logical study were well established.

This chapter examines the mate-rial record of the past and some ofthe techniques used by modernanthropologists to locate, recover,and date their discoveries. On one

hand, this includes the bones and pre-served remains used by paleoanthropologists to trace

human origins. On the other hand, it deals with thematerial traces of human behavior which archaeolo-

gists focus on to interpret past cultures. In reality, thesubdisciplines are often intertwined. Paleoanthropolo-gists use excavation and surveying techniques simi-lar to those used by archaeologists—or they rely onarchaeologists—to locate and recover their finds. Asto be discussed in Chapter 25, archaeological meth-ods have also played an important role in forensicanthropology.

This book provides an overview of some of thetechniques used and current interpretations. In reading

20

Chapter Questions

How can we learn about the past from fossil evidence?

What is the archaeological record?

What does the archaeological record tell us aboutpast societies?

How does prehistoric archaeology differ from historicalarchaeology and ethnoarchaeology?

What are some of the basic techniques of locatingarchaeological sites?

What are the basic techniques of archaeologicalexcavation?

How do archaeologists date their artifacts?

W hy study the human past? During the earlyhistory of anthropology, the answer tothis question was straightforward.The study of fossils and artifacts

of the past sprang out of a curiosity aboutthe world and the desire to collect and or-ganize objects. This curiosity was, in part,a reflection of the increasing interest in thenatural world that arose with the Westernscientific revolution beginning in thefifteenth century (see Chapter 3). For

early collectors, however, the object was often an end in itself. Items wereplaced on shelves to look at, with littleor no interest expressed in where thefossils might have come from or whatthe artifacts and their associatedmaterials might tell about the peo-ple that produced them. Collectorsof this kind are called antiquaries .

Early antiquarian collections oftenincorporated many different items in addition to fossilsand archaeological materials. For example, the museumof Olaus Wormius, a seventeenth-century Danish scholar,

included uniquely shaped stones, seashells, ethnographicobjects, and curiosities from around the world, in additionto fossils and ancient stone tools. While these objects weresometimes described and illustrated with great care, they

were not analyzed or interpreted to shed light on the evolu-tion of life or on the lifeways of ancient humans. Of course,ancient coins, metal artifacts, and jewelry were recognizedfor what they were, but stone tools and even ancient pot-tery were generally regarded as naturally occurring objectsor the work of trolls, elves, and fairies (Steibing 1994).

Listen to the

Chapter Audio on

myanthrolab.com


3/25

Chapter 2 The Record of the Past 21

these discussions, it is important to remember that inter-pretations are constantly being revised. New fossils areconstantly uncovered and archaeological sites exposed.Improved methods also modify the amount and kind ofinformation available to researchers. Each of these dis-coveries adds to the amount of information available to

interpret the past—and to evaluate and revise existinginterpretations.

Answering QuestionsFew modern archaeologists or paleoanthropologists

would deny the thrill of finding a well- preserved fos-sil, an intact arrow point, or the sealed tomb of aking, but the romance of discovery is not theprimary driving force for these scientists.In contrast to popular movie images, mod-ern researchers are likely to spend moretime in a laboratory or in front of a wordprocessor than looking for fossils or ex-ploring lost cities. Perhaps, their mostfundamental desire is to reach back intime to understand our past more fully.This book deals with some of the majorquestions that have been addressedby paleoanthropologists and archae-ologists: the evolution of the hu-man species, the human settlementof the world, the origins of agri-culture, and the rise of complexsocieties and the state.

Although anthropologists makean effort to document the record

of bygone ages as fully as pos-sible, they clearly cannot locateevery fossil, document every ar-chaeological site, or even recordevery piece of information about each artifactrecovered. Despite decades of research, only a minuteportion of such important fossil localities as those inthe Fayum Depression in Egypt and Olduvai Gorge inTanzania have been studied (see Chapters 4 and 5).In examining an archaeological site or even a particu-lar artifact, many different avenues of research mightbe pursued (see the box “Engendering Archaeology:The Role of Women in Aztec Mexico” on page 22).

For example, when investigating pottery from a par-ticular archaeological site, some archaeologists mightconcentrate on the technical attributes of the clay andthe manufacturing process (Rice 1987). Others mightfocus on the decorative motifs on the pottery andhow they relate to the myths and religious beliefs ofthe people who created them. Still other researchersmight be most interested in the pottery’s distribution(where it was found) and what this conveys about an-cient trade patterns.

Research is guided by the questions about the pastthat the anthropologist wants to answer. In order toformulate these, the researcher reviews existing datathat help place their research in wider context. Theanthropologist also begins by being well-grounded inthe different theoretical perspectives of anthropology

that shape their questions. With this background, theanthropologist plans a research project. This is donein a systematic way, as outlined in the discussion ofthe scientific method in Chapter 1. To ensure that thedata recovered are relevant to their questions, paleo-anthropologists and archaeologists begin a project bypreparing a research design in which the objectivesof the project are set out and the strategy for recov-

ering the relevant data is outlined. The researchdesign must take into account the types of datathat will be collected and how those data relateto existing anthropological knowledge. Withinthe research design, the anthropologist speci-

fies what types of methods will be used for theinvestigation, what regions will be surveyed,

how much of a site will be excavated, andhow the artifacts will be analyzed. Gen-erally, the research design is then re- viewed by other anthropologists , who

recommend it for funding by vari-ous government or private research

foundations.

Paleoanthropological

StudyPaleoanthropologists study the traces ofancient humans and human ancestors to

comprehend the biological evolution of thehuman species and to understand the lifestyles of

these distant relations. As will be discussed in Chapter 5,the behavior, diet, and activities of these early humans

were very different from those of modern humans. De-termining their behavior, as well as the age of the findsand the environment in which early humans lived, is de-pendent on an array of specialized skills and techniques.Understanding depends on the holistic, interdisciplinaryapproach that characterizes anthropology.

As in all anthropological research, a paleoanthro-pological project begins with a research design outlin-ing the objectives of the project and the methodologyto be employed. This would include a description ofthe region and the time period to be examined, thedata that will be recovered, and an explanation ofhow the proposed research would contribute to exist-ing knowledge. For example, researchers might targetgeological deposits of a specific location and age forexamination because of the potential to discover the


4/25

22 Chapter 2 The Record of the Past

Engendering Archaeology:The Role of Women in

Aztec Mexico

T he interpretation of the mate-rial record poses a challenge toarchaeologists. It provides ex-cellent evidence on some subjects—ancient technology, diet, huntingtechniques, and the plan of an ancientsettlement—but some topics are moredifficult to address. What were themarriage customs, the political system,or the religious beliefs of the ancient in-habitants of a site? These factors areby nature nonmaterial and are not pre-served archaeologically. Even docu-mentary records may offer only limitedinsight on some topics.

In a fascinating study of genderamong the Aztec of ancient Mexico,archaeologist Elizabeth Brumfiel uti-lized both the archaeological and thedocumentary record to provide newinsights into the past (Brumel 1991,2005). The Aztec civilization wasourishing in central Mexico when theSpanish reached the Americas. It hademerged as the principal state in the

region by the fteenth century, eventu-ally dominating an area stretching fromthe Valley of Mexico to modern-dayGuatemala, some 500 miles to thesouthwest. The capital, Tenochtitlán,

was an impressive religious center builton an island in Lake Texcoco. The city’spopulation numbered tens of thousandswhen the Aztec leader, Montezuma,was killed during ghting with Spanishconquistadors led by Hernán Cortés in1520. Within decades of the rst Span-ish contact, the traces of the Aztecempire had crumbled and been sweptaside by European colonization.

Records of the Aztec civilizationsurvive in documentary accountsrecorded by the Spanish. The mostcomprehensive is a monumental trea-tise on Aztec life, from the raising ofchildren to religious beliefs, written by

Fray Bernardino de Sahagun (Brumel1991). It is the most exhaustive recordof a Native American culture from theearliest years of European contact.For this reason, it has been a primarysource of information about Aztec lifeand culture.

Brumel was particularly interestedin reconstructing the roles of women in

Aztec society. Sahagun’s description ofwomen focuses on weaving and foodpreparation. Regrettably, as Brumfielpoints out, his work offers little insightinto how these endeavors were tied toother economic, political, and religiousactivities. In addition, Sahagun does

Critical Perspectives

Aztec codex showing women weaving.

origins of the common ancestors of humans and apes(see Chapter 4), the earliest branches on the humanlineage, or the fossil record of the first modern humans(see Chapter 5).

The initial survey work for a paleoanthropologicalproject often relies on paleontologists and geologists, who provide an assessment of the age of the deposits within the region to be studied and the likely condi-tions that contributed to their formation. Clues aboutthe age may be determined through the identificationof distinctive geological deposits and associated flo-ral and faunal remains (see the discussion of datingmethods and faunal correlation later in this chapter).Such information also helps in the reconstruction of

the paleoecology of the region and, hence, the envi-ronment in which early human ancestors lived. Paleo-ecology ( paleo , from the Greek, meaning “old,” andecology , meaning “study of environment”) is the study

of ancient environments.Based on the information provided by paleontolo-gists and geologists, more detailed survey work is un-dertaken to locate traces of early humans. Looking forsuch traces has been likened to looking for a needle ina haystack, except in this case the “looking” involves thescrutiny of geological deposits and the careful excava-tion of buried skeletal remains and associated material.This stage of the research may draw on the skills of thearchaeologist, who is trained to examine the material


5/25


not comment on some of his ownillustrations that show women involved

in such undertakings as healing andmarketing. Interpretations based solelyon Sahagun’s descriptions seemed tomarginalize women’s roles in produc-tion as non-dynamic and of no impor-tance in the study of culture change.

To obtain a more hol istic view ofwomen in Aztec society, Brumfielturned to other sources. The Aztecsalso possessed their own records.

Although most of them were soughtout and burned by the zealous Span-ish priests, some Aztec codices sur-vive. These sources indicate thattextiles were essential as tribute, reli-gious offerings, and exchange. Manyillustrations also depict women in foodproduction activities. In addition tovarious categories of food, the codicesshow the griddles, pots, and imple-ments used in food preparation.

Independent information on theseactivities is provided by the archaeo-logical record. For example, the rela-tive importance of weaving can beassessed by the number and typesof spindle whorls (perforated ceramic

disks used to weight the spindle duringspinning) that are found in large num-bers on archaeological sites. Archaeo-logical indications of dietary practicescan be inferred from ceramic griddles,

cooking pots, jars, and stone toolsused in the gathering and preparation

of food.Brumel notes that the most inter-esting aspect of archaeological dataon both weaving and food preparationis the variation. Given the static modelof women’s roles seen in the docu-mentary records, a uniform patternmight be expected in the archaeo-logical data. In fact, precisely the op-posite is true. Evidence for weavingand cooking activities varies in differ-ent sites and over time. Brumel sug-gests that the performance of theseactivities was inuenced by a numberof variables, including environmentalzones, proximity to urban markets,social status, and intensied agricul-tural production.

Food preparation, essential to thehousehold, was also integral tothe tenfold increase in the populationof the Valley of Mexico during the fourcenturies preceding Spanish rule. Aspopulation expanded during the later

Aztec period, archaeological evidenceindicates that there was intensifiedfood production in the immediate hin-

terland of Tenochtitlán. Conversely,the evidence for weaving decreases,indicating that women shifted fromweaving to market-oriented food pro-duction. These observations are not

borne out at sites further away fromthe Aztec capital. In more distant sites,

women intensified the productionof tribute cloth with which the Aztecempire transacted business.

Brumfiel’s research providesinsights into the past that neitherarchaeological nor documentary infor-mation can supply on its own. She wasfortunate to have independent sourcesof information that she could draw onto interpret and evaluate her conclu-sions. Her interpretation of Aztec lifeprovides a much more dynamic viewof women’s roles. The observationsare also consistent with the view of thehousehold as a flexible social institu-tion that varies with the presented op-portunities and constraints. Brumel’swork underscores the importance ofconsidering both women’s and men’sroles as part of an interconnected,dynamic system.

Points to Ponder

1. In the absence of any documentaryor ethnographic information, howcan archaeologists examine thegender of past societies?

2. Can we automatically associatesome artifacts with men or withwomen?

3. Would interpretations vary in differ-ent cultural settings?

remains of past societies (see discussion of “Archaeologi-cal Excavation” below).

Fossils and Fossil LocalitiesMuch of paleoanthropological research focuses on thelocating and study of fossil remains. Fossils are the pre-served remains, impressions, or traces of living creaturesfrom past ages. They form when an organism dies andis buried by soft mud, sand, or silt ( Figure 2.1 ). Overtime this sediment hardens, preserving the remains ofthe creature within. Occasionally, conditions may besuch that actual portions of an organism are preserved— fragments of shells, teeth, or bones. But most fossils have

been altered in some way, the decayed parts of bone orshell having been replaced by minerals or surroundingsediment. Even in cases in which fragments of bone orshell are present, they have often been broken or de-

formed and need to be carefully reconstructed. The chal-lenge faced by paleoanthropologists is what criteria touse to distinguish species from a number of closely re-lated taxa on the basis of fragmentary skeletal remains.The unraveling of the genetic codes of living species hasalso led to debate over the classification. Despite the im-perfection of the fossil record, a striking history of life onEarth has survived.

Paleoanthropologists refer to places where fos-sils are found as fossil localities . These are spots


6/25


where predators dropped animals they had ki lled,places where creatures were naturally covered by sedi-ments, or sites where early humans actually lived. Ofparticular importance in interpreting fossil localities isthe taphonomy of the site—the study of the variety of

natural and behavioral processes that led to the forma-tion of the deposits uncovered. As seen in Figure 2.2 ,the taphonomy of an individual fossil locality may becomplex and the unraveling of the history that con-tributed to its formation very challenging indeed

1 2

3

5

4

Figure 2.1 Only a small number of the creatures that have lived are preserved as fossils. After death, predators, scavengers,and natural processes destroy many remains, frequently leaving only fragmentary traces for researchers to uncover.


7/25


(Blumenschine 1995; Lyman 2002). The fossil localitymay include traces of the activities of early humans— the artifacts resulting from their behavior, tool manu-facture, and discarded food remains, as well as theremains of the early humans themselves. On the otherhand, these traces may have been altered by a host ofdisturbances, including erosion by wind and rain anddestruction and movement by wild animals.

Only a small number of the once-living creatures arepreserved in the fossil record. After death, few animalsare left to lie peacefully, waiting to be covered by lay-ers of sediment and preserved as fossils. Many are killedby predators that scatter the bones. Scavengers maycarry away parts of the carcass, and insects, bacteria,and weather quickly destroy many of the remains that

are left. As a result, individual fossil finds are often veryincomplete. Some areas might not have had the right con-ditions to fossilize and preserve remains, or the remainsof early human ancestors that may be present might beso fragmentary and mixed with deposits of other ages tobe of limited use. Another consideration is the accessibil-ity of fossil deposits. Fossils may be found in many areas,but they often lie buried under deep deposits that makeit impossible for researchers to study them and assesstheir age and condition. In other instances, however,

erosion by wind or water exposes underlying layers ofrock that contain fossils, thus providing the paleoanthro-pologist the chance to discover them—even as they are

weathering away.Once a fossil locality is found, systematic excavations

are undertaken to reveal buried deposits. In excavating,paleoanthropologists take great pains to record a fossil’scontext. Context refers to a fossil’s or artifact’s exact po-sition in relation to the surrounding sediments and anyassociated materials. Only if the precise location and as-sociations are known can a fossil be accurately dated andany associated archaeological and paleontological materi-als be fully interpreted.

After fossils have been removed from the ground,the detailed analysis of the finds begins. This starts

with the careful cleaning of fossil remains and asso-ciated materials. Fossils are generally preserved in ahardened, mineralized deposit, and cleaning may betedious and time-consuming. Careful study of fine-grained sediments sometimes reveals the preserva-tion of minute fossils of shellfish, algae, and pollen.Improved techniques, such as computer and elec-tronic scanning equipment, have revealed that imagesof the delicate structure in bones or the interior of askull may be preserved in a fossil. Artifacts and faunal

Figure 2.2 A variety of different activitieand events contribute to the formation ofan individual fossil locality. These includeactivities by the early human ancestors, butalso such natural processes as decomposi-tion and decay, erosion by wind and rain,and movement of bones and artifacts by

animals. Paleoanthropologists must try todecipher these different factors in interpret-ing the behavior of early human ancestors.


8/25


remains from the excavations are labeled and carefullydescribed and any fossil remains of early humans arereconstructed.

Drawing on all of the geological, paleontological,archaeological, and physical anthropological informa-tion, the paleoanthropologist then attempts to place the

discoveries in the context of other discoveries and inter-pretations. The anatomical characteristics of the fossils ofthe early humans will be compared to other fossils to tryto assess their evolutionary relationship, and the otherdata will be brought to bear on the reconstruction of theancient environment and models of the way they lived.

As more evidence is uncovered, the original interpreta-tion may be confirmed, reinterpreted, or declared false inlight of the new findings.

Archaeological Research As seen in Chapter 1, archaeology is the subdisci-pline of anthropology that deals with the study of pasthuman cultures through the material traces they leftbehind. Culture is a fundamental concept in the dis-cipline of anthropology. In popular use, most peopleuse the word culture to refer to “high culture”: Shake-speare’s works, Beethoven’s symphonies, Michelan-gelo’s sculptures, gourmet cooking, imported wines,and so on. Anthropologists, however, use the term ina much broader sense to refer to a shared way of lifethat includes values, beliefs, and norms transmitted

within a particular society from generation to genera-tion. This view of culture includes agricultural prac-tices, social organization, religion, political systems,science, and sports. Culture thus encompasses all

aspects of human activity, from the fine arts to pop-ular entertainment, from everyday behavior to themost deeply rooted religious beliefs. Culture containsthe plans, rules, techniques, and designs for living.

In seeking to understand past cultures through theirphysical traces, archaeologists face an inherent diffi-culty. By its very nature, culture is nonmaterial —that is,it refers to intangible products of human society (suchas values, beliefs, religion, and norms) that are not pre-served archaeologically. Hence, archaeologists must relyon the artifacts—the physical remains of past societ-ies. This residue of the past is called material culture.Material culture consists of the physical products of

human society (ranging from weapons to clothing). Theearliest traces of material culture are stone tools datingback more than two and a half million years: simplechoppers, scrapers, and flakes. Modern material cultureconsists of all the physical objects that a contemporarysociety produces or retains from the past, such as tools,streets, buildings, homes, toys, medicines, and automo-biles. Archaeologists investigate these material tracesof societies to examine the values, beliefs, and norms

that represent the patterned ways of thinking and acting within past societies.

Archaeological interpretation has historically beenstrongly influenced by cultural anthropology theory(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989; Trigger 1989). Culturalanthropology —the study of modern human populations—

helps archaeologists understand how cultural systems work and how the archaeological record might reflectportions of these systems. On the other hand, archae-ology offers cultural anthropology a time depth thatcannot be obtained through observations of living pop-ulations. The archaeological record provides a recordof past human behavior. Clearly, it furnishes impor-tant insights into past technology, providing answersto such questions as “When did people learn to makepottery?” and “How was iron smelted?” However, arti-facts also offer clues to past ideals and belief systems.Consider, for example, what meanings and beliefsare conveyed by such artifacts as a Christian cross, a

Jewish menorah, or a Hopi kachina figure. Other ar-tifacts convey cultural beliefs in more subtle ways.Everyday items, such as the knife, fork, spoon, andplate used in Americans’ meals, are not the only uten-sils suitable for the task; indeed, food preference itselfis a culturally influenced choice.

The objectives of archaeological research vary tre-mendously in terms of the time periods, geographicalareas, and research questions considered. Many research-ers have examined the themes dealt with in this book:the behavior of early human ancestors, the initial settle-ment of the Americas, the origins of agriculture, and theemergence of complex political systems. However, otherarchaeologists have turned their attention to the more re-

cent past and have examined the archaeological record ofEuropean colonization over the past five hundred yearsand nineteenth-century American society; they have evenshed light on modern society by sifting through garbagebags and landfills.

The Archaeological RecordThe preservation of archaeological materials varies(Schiffer 1987). Look at the objects that surround you.How long would these artifacts survive if left uncaredfor and exposed to the elements? As is the case with thefossil record, the archaeological past is a well-worn and

fragmentary cloth rather than a complete tapestry. Stoneartifacts endure very well, and thus it is not surprisingthat much of our knowledge of early human lifeways isbased on stone tools. Ceramics and glass may also sur-

vive very well, but iron and copper corrode, and organicmaterials, such as bone, cloth, paper, and wood, gener-ally disappear quickly.

In some cases, environmental conditions that limitinsect and microbial action and protect a site from


9/25


Historical Archaeology

Some archaeologists havethe luxury of written recordsand oral histories to help

them locate and interpret their finds.Researchers delving into ancientEgyptian sites, the ancient Near East,Greek and Roman sites, Chinese civi-lization, Mayan temples, Aztec cities,Islamic sites, biblical archaeology, andthe settlements of medieval Europecan all refer to written sources rangingfrom religious texts to explorers’ ac-counts and tax records.

Why d ig fo r a rchaeo log ica lmaterials if written records or oraltraditions can tell the story? Althoughsuch sources may provide a tremen-dous amount of information, they donot furnish a complete record (Deetz1996; Noel Hume 1983; Orser 2004).Whereas the life story of a head ofstate, records of trade contacts, or thedate of a temple’s construction maybe preserved, the lives of many peopleand the minutia of everyday life wereseldom noted. In addition, the writtenrecord was often biased by the writer’s

personal or cultural perspective. Forexample, much of the written historyof Native Americans, sub-Saharan

Afr icans, Australian Aborigines, andmany other indigenous peoples wererecorded by European missionar-ies, traders, and administrators, whofrequently provided only incompleteaccounts viewed in terms of their owninterests and beliefs.

Information from living informantsmay also provide important informationabout some populations, particularlysocieties with limited written records.In recognizing the signicance of suchnonwritten sources, however, it is alsonecessary to recognize their distinctlimitations. The specic roles oral tra-ditions played (and continue to play)varied in different cultural settings. Justas early European chroniclers viewed

Critical Perspectives

events with reference to their owncultural traditions, so oral histories areshaped by the worldviews, histories,and beliefs of the various cultures thatemploy them. Interpreting such mate-rial may be challenging for individualsoutside the originating cultures. Thestudy of the archaeological record may

provide a great deal of information notfound in other sources and providean independent means of evaluatingconclusions drawn on the basis ofother sources of information (see thebox “Engendering Archaeology: TheRole of Women in Aztec Mexico”). Forexample, it has proven particularly use-ful in assessing change and continu-ity in indigenous populations duringthe past ve hundred years (DeCorse2001; Lightfoot 2005).

In the Americas, during the pastseveral decades, an increasing amountof work has concentrated on the his-tory of immigrants who arrived in thelast five hundred years from Europe,

Asia, Africa , and other world areas. Archaeological studies have proven ofgreat help in interpreting historical sitesand past lifeways, as well as culture

change, sociopolitical developments,and past economic systems. Amongthe most signicant areas of study is thearchaeology of slavery (Ferguson 1992;Singleton 1999). Although living in liteate societies, slaves were prohibitedfrom writing, were often illiterate, andthus left a very limited documentary

record of their own. Archaeologi-cal data have been used to provide amuch more complete picture of planta-tion life and slave society.

Points to Ponder

1. What are some different sourcesof “historical” information—writteand orally preserved accounts—that you can think of? How arethese different from one anotherin terms of the details they mightprovide?

2. Consider a particular activity or be-havior important to you (for exam-ple, going to school, participating ina sport, or pursuing a hobby). Howwould evidence of the activity bepresented in written accounts, oralhistories, and the archaeologicalrecord?

Archaeologist Merrick Posnansky interviewing the chief of

the town of Hani, Ghana in 1983. Researchers can useknowledge gathered from living informants to help interpretarchaeological nds.Source: Courtesy of Merrick Posnansky, UCLA.


10/25


exposure to the elements may allow for the strikingpreservation of archaeological materials. Some of themost amazing cases are those in which items havebeen rapidly frozen. An illustration of this kind of pres-ervation is provided by the discovery in 1991 of the5,300-year-old frozen remains of a Bronze Age man by

hikers in Italy’s Tyrol Mountains (Fowler 2000). With thebody were a wooden backpack, a wooden bow, four-teen bone-tipped arrows, and fragments of clothing. Inother instances, a waterlogged environment, very dryclimate, or rapid burial may create conditions for ex-cellent preservation. Such unique instances providearchaeologists with a much more complete record thanis usually found.

Places of past human activity that are preservedin the ground are called archaeological sites . Sites reflectthe breadth of human endeavor. Some are settlementsthat may have been occupied for a considerable time,for example, a Native American village or an abandonedgold-mining town in the American West. Other sites re-flect specialized activities, for instance, a ceremonial cen-ter, a burial ground, or a place where ancient hunterskilled and butchered an animal.

Much of the archaeologist’s time is devoted to thestudy of artifacts—any object made or modified byhumans. They include everything from chipped stonetools and pottery to plastic bottles and computers. Non-movable artifacts, such as an ancient fire hearth, a pitdug in the ground, or a wall, are called features . In ad-dition to artifacts and features, archaeologists examineitems recovered from archaeological sites that were notproduced by humans, but nevertheless provide impor-tant insights into the past. Animal bones, shells, and

plant remains recovered from an archaeological sitefurnish information on both the past climatic conditions

and the diet of the early inhabitants. The soil of a siteis also an important record of past activities and thenatural processes that affected a site’s formation. Fires,floods, and erosion all leave traces in the earth for thearchaeologist to discover. All of these data may yieldimportant information about the age, organization,

and function of the site being examined. These non-artifactual organic and environmental remains are re-ferred to as ecofacts .

As is the case with the recovery of fossils, the archae-ologist takes special care to record the contexts in whicharchaeological materials are found, the artifacts’ specificlocation in the ground, and associated materials. With-out a context, an artifact offers only a limited amount ofpotential information. By itself, a pot may be identified assomething similar to other finds from a specific area andtime period, but it provides no new information. If, how-ever, it and similar pots are found to contain offerings ofa particular kind and are associated with female burials,a whole range of other inferences may be made aboutthe past. By removing artifacts from sites, laypersons un-

wittingly cause irreparable damage to the archaeologicalrecord.

Locating SitesIn 1940, schoolboys retrieving their dog from a holein a hillside near Montignac, France, found themselvesin an underground cavern. The walls were covered

with delicate black and red paintings of bison, horses,and deer. The boys had discovered Lascaux Cave, oneof the finest known examples of Paleolithic cave art.Chance findings such as this sometimes play a role in

the discovery of archaeological remains, as well as pa-leoanthropological research, but researchers generally

In some cases, environmental conditions may allow for amazing preservation, as illustrated by the 4,000-year-old naturally mummiedremains of a woman from arid hills near the Chinese city of Ürümqi (left) and the 5,300-year-old frozen remains of a man found in Italy’s

Tyrol mountains (right).


11/25


into a grid , which is then walked systematically. In otherinstances, transects may provide useful information, par-ticularly where vegetation is very thick. In this case, astraight line, or transect , is laid out through the area to besurveyed. Fieldworkers then walk along this line, notingchanges in topography, vegetation, and artifacts.

Subsurface Testing and Survey Because manyarchaeological sites are buried in the ground, many sur-

veys incorporate some kind of subsurface testing. Thismay involve digging auger holes or shovel test pits atregular intervals in the survey, the soil from which is ex-amined for any traces of archaeological material. Thistechnique may provide important information on the lo-cation of an archaeological site, its extent, and the typeof material represented.

Today, many different technological innovations al-low the archaeologist to prospect for buried sites withoutlifting a spade. The utility of these tools can be illustrated

by the magnetometer and resistivity meter. The protonmagnetometer is a sensor that can detect differences inthe soil’s magnetic field caused by buried features andartifacts. A buried foundation will give a different readingthan an ancient road, both being different from the sur-rounding undisturbed soil. As the magnetometer is sys-tematically moved over an area, a plan of buried featurescan be created.

Electrical resistivity provides similar information,though it is based on a different concept. A resistivitymeter is used to measure the electrical current pass-ing between electrodes that are placed in the ground.

Variation in electrical current indicates differences inthe soil’s moisture content, which in turn reflects bur-ied ditches, foundations, or walls that retain moisture to

varying degrees. Although at times yielding spectacular results, tech-

niques such as magnetometer and resistiv-ity surveys are not without their limitations.Buried metal at a site may confuse themagnetic readings of other materials, anda leaking hose wreaks havoc with a resis-tivity meter. Both techniques may produceconfusing patterns as a result of shallowlyburied geological features such as bedrock.

Remote Sensing An archaeologist was once heard to say that “one oughtto be a bird to be a field archaeologist,”

Archaeologists use Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR), a non-invasive method to detect artifacts inNew York’s Central Park.

have to undertake a systematic examination, or survey ,of a particular area, region, or country to locate sites.They will usually begin by examining previous descrip-tions, maps, and reports of the area for references toarchaeological sites. Informants who live and work inthe area may also be of great help in directing archae-

ologists to discoveries.Of course, some archaeological sites are more eas-ily located than others; the great pyramids near Cairo,Egypt; Stonehenge in southern England; and the Parthe-non of Athens have never been lost. Though interpre-tations of their precise use may differ, their impressiveremains are difficult to miss. Unfortunately, many sites,particularly some of the more ancient, are more difficultto locate. The settlements occupied by early humans

wer e usually small, and only ephemera l traces arepreserved in the ground. In many instances, they maybe covered under many feet of sediment. Examinationof the ground surface may reveal scatters of artifacts ordiscolorations in the soil, which provide clues to bur-ied deposits. Sometimes nature inadvertently helps ar-chaeologists, as erosion by wind or rain may exposesites. Archaeologists can also examine road cuts, build-ing projects, and freshly plowed land for archaeologicalmaterials.

In the field, an archaeologist defines what areas willbe targeted for survey. These areas will be determinedby the research design, but also by environmental andtopographical considerations, as well as the practicalconstraints of time and money. Archaeological surveyscan be divided into systematic and unsystematic approaches (Renfrew and Bahn 2008). The latter is sim-pler, the researcher simply walking over trails, riverbanks,

and plowed fields in the survey area and making notesof any archaeological material observed. This approachavoids the problem of climbing through thick vegetationor rugged terrain. Unfortunately, it may also pro-duce a biased sample of the archaeological re-mains present; ancient land uses might have littlecorrespondence with modern trails or plowed fields.

Researchers use many different methods toensure more systematic results. In some in-stances, a region, valley, or site is divided


12/25


Underwater Archaeology

S unken ships, submerged set-tlements, and flooded towns: This wide variety of sites of dif-ferent time periods in different worldareas shares the need for special-ized techniques to locate, excavate,and study them (Ballard 2008; Bass2005; Koppel 2003; Menotti 2004).

Although effor ts were occasional lymade in the past to recover cargoesfrom sunken ships, it was only withthe invention and increasing accessi-bility of underwater breathing equip-ment during the twentieth centurythat the systematic investigation ofunderwater sites became feasible.Often artifacts from underwater sitesare better preserved and so presenta wider range of materials than thosefrom land. Even more important,underwater sites are immune to thecontinued disturbances associatedwith human activity that are typical ofmost land sites. Shipwrecks can becompared to time capsules, contain-ing a selection of artifacts that were inuse in a certain context at a speci c

time. Archaeologists working on landseldom have such clearly sealed ar-chaeological deposits.

A tantal izing example of an un-derwater archaeological project isthe excavation and raising of the pre-served remains of the Mary Rose , thepride of the young English navy andthe flower of King Henry VIII’s fleet.

Th e 70 0- to n wa rs hi p, wh ic h wa sprobably the first English warshipdesigned to carry a battery of guns

between its decks, foundered andsank in Portsmouth harbor on a warm

July afternoon in 1545. Henry VIII,camped with his army at SouthseaCastle, is said to have witnessed thedisaster and heard the cries of thecrew. In the 1970s, the site of theMary Rose was rediscovered and wassystematically explored by volunteerdivers from around the world. Theship produced a spectacular array ofover 14,000 artifacts, ranging frommassive cannons to musical instru-ments, famed English longbows, andnavigational equipment. Finds fromthe Mary Rose and the preserved por-tions of the hull can be seen at theMary Rose Ship Hall and Exhibitionat the H. M. Naval Base, Portsmouth,England (Marsden 2003, 2009).

Most people associate underwa-ter archaeology with sunken ships,and this, in fact, represents an im-portant part of the subdiscipline.However, rising sea levels or natura ldisasters may also submerge citiesand towns. Research on settlementsnow underwater is providing increas-ing insight into early human settle-

ment (Koppel 2003; Menotti 2004). As in the case of shipwrecks, the lackof oxygen and the sealed nature ofthe archaeological materials presentspecial challenges in excavation, butalso remarkable preservation. Suchis the case of Port Royal, Jamaica,a flourishing trade center and infa-mous gathering place for pirates dur-ing the seventeenth century. In 1692,a violent earthquake and tidal wavesubmerged or buried portions of the

city, preserving a record for future ar-chaeologists. Excavations at the sitespanning the last three decades haverecovered a wealth of materials fromseventeenth-century life (Hamiltonand Woodward 1984).

Points to Ponder

1. Archaeological excavation on landis a meticulous and careful pro-cess. Discuss how excavation andrecording methods would have tobe modied to conduct archaeolog-ical research underneath the water.

2. Given the unique location and pres-ervation found at underwater sites,why might they be more appropri-ate or important than land sitesfor considering certain types of re-search questions?

Applying Anthropology

and indeed, the perspective provided by aerialphotography , sometimes called “aerial archaeology,”has been a boon to archaeologists (Daniel 1981:165).Experiments with aerial photography occurred priorto World War I, but it was during the war that its po-tential importance to archaeological surveys was rec-ognized. Pilots noticed that some sites, invisible on

the ground, were dramatically illustrated from the air.The rich organic soils f ound in archaeological sites,subtle depressions in the ground surface, or slight dif-ferences in vegetation resulting from buried featuresmay be dramatically illustrated in aerial photographs.More recent technological innovations, such as theuse of infrared, false color photography, help identify


13/25


differences in vegetation and make abandoned settle-ments and patterns of past land use more apparent.

Aerial photography has proven very important in lo-cating sites, but it is also of particular use in mappingand interpretation (Brophy and Cowley 2005; Kruck-man 1987).

Of less use to archaeologists are photographs orimages taken from extremely high altitudes by satellitesor space shuttles. The scale of these pictures some-times limits their use and their cost may make thembeyond the reach of many researchers (Madry 2003;Madry et al 2003). The potential application of suchsophisticated techniques, however, has been well dem-onstrated. National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration (NASA) scientists, working with archaeologistshave been able to identify ancient Mesopotamian andMayan settlements and farmlands that had not beenlocated with other techniques. Space imaging radar ,

which can detect features buried under six feet of sand,proved helpful in identifying ancient caravan routes onthe Arabian Peninsula. These routes enabled research-ers to locate the lost city of Ubar, a trade center that

was destroyed around 100 A.D., and the city of Saffaraon the Indian Ocean (Clapp 1998). As space age tech-nology becomes both more refined and more afford-able, it may provide an increasingly important resourcefor archaeologists (see box “Anthropologists At Work:Scott Madry).

Archaeological Excavation Archaeological surveys provide invaluable informationabout the past. The distribution of sites on the landscapeoffers knowledge about the use of natural resources,trade patterns, and political organization. Surveys alsohelp define the extent of specific sites and allow for a

preliminary assessment of their age and function. Thesedata are invaluable in interpreting regional developmentsand how individual sites form part of a larger picture.However, depending on the project’s research objectives,an archaeologist may want more detailed informationabout individual sites. Once an archaeological site hasbeen located, it may be targeted for systematic archaeo-logical excavation ( Figure 2.3 ).

Excavation is costly, time-consuming, and alsodestructive. Once dug up, an archaeological site is goneforever; it can be “reassembled” only through the noteskept by the archaeologist. For this reason, archaeologi-cal excavation is undertaken with great care. Although

picks and shovels may occasionally come into play, thetools used most commonly are the trowel, whisk broom,and dustpan. Different techniques may be required fordifferent kinds of sites. For example, more care mightbe taken in excavating the remains of a small huntingcamp than a nineteenth-century house in an urban set-ting covered with tons of modern debris. On under-

water sites, researchers must contend with recordingfinds using specialized techniques while wearing spe-cial breathing apparatus (see the boxes “Underwater

Archaeology” and “George Fletcher Bass: Underwater Archaeologist”). Nevertheless, whatever the site, the ar-chaeologist carefully records the context of each artifactuncovered, each feature exposed, and any changes insurrounding soil.

Work usually begins with the clearing of the siteand the preparation of a detailed site plan. A grid isplaced over the site. This is usually fixed to a datumpoint , some permanent feature or marker that can beused as a reference point and will allow the excava-tion’s exact position to be relocated. As in the case ofother facets of the research project, the research designdetermines the areas to be excavated. Excavations ofmidden deposits, or ancient trash piles, often provideinsights into the range of artifacts at a site, but excava-tion of dwellings might provide more information intopast social organization, political organization, and so-cioeconomic status.

A question often asked of archaeologists is how deepthey have to dig to “find something.” The answer is,“Well, that depends.” The depth of any given archaeolog-ical deposit is contingent upon a wide range of variables,including the type of site, how long it was occupied, thetypes of soil represented, and the environmental historyof the area. In some cases, artifacts thousands or evenhundreds of thousands of years old may lie exposed onthe surface. In other cases, flooding, burial, or cultural

Satellite photo of the Nile River in Egypt illustrates the stark con-trast between the river’s oodplain and the surrounding desert. Atthe southern edge of the image is Luxor, which includes the ruinsof the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes. Archaeologists are increas-ingly able to use space-age technology to locate archaeologicalfeatures.


14/25


Figure 2.3 Excavation, archaeological plan, and artist’s reconstruction of an eighteenth-century slave cabin at Seville Planta-tion, St. Anne’s, Jamaica. The meticulous recording of excavated artifacts and features allows archaeologists to reconstruct

the appearance of past settlements. In this case, eighteenth-century illustrations and written descriptions helped the artist addfeatures, such as the roof, that were not preserved archaeologically.Source : Courtesy of Douglas V. Armstrong, Syracuse University.


15/25


Dashur Amenemhat lll Pyramid

Bent Pyramid

Red Pyramid

N

SCOTT MADRY:Google Earth and

Armchair Archaeology

T he value of aerial photogra-phy and high-tech satelli teimagery in archaeology is welldemonstrated, but the cost of suchresources has often placed them be-yond the reach of most archaeolo-gists. But this situation is changing.Once the purview of governmentsand space programs, high altitudeimages are becoming both morecommon and of more general inter-est, and archaeologists are reapingthe benefits.

A case in point is Google Earth,a popular desktop program thatprovides satellite imagery, allow-ing the user to zoom in on specificlocals and even to track their ownmovements. The program is use-ful in getting directions and check-ing out vacation spots, as well asan aid in planning for a variety ofnon-profit and public benefit organi-zations. Archaeologist Scott Madrybecame curious about the potentialuse of Google Earth in his long-termresearch on the archaeology of Bur-gundy, France (Madry 2007). Madryis interested in the application ofaerial photography, remote sensing,and geographic information systemstechnology to understand the in-teraction between the different cul-tures and the physical environmentover the past 2,000 years. While hefound that the images available onGoogle Earth were of limited use inhis research area, the data available

for a neighboring region that shareda similar environment and culture

history proved spectacular. The im-ages provided dramatic images ofarchaeological sites. Although manyof these sites had been previouslyidentified, the results demonstratedthe potential of Google Earth as anarchaeological research tool.

Google Earth is not the perfectsolution for every research situa-tion. The coverage is dependent ofthe images available and is of vari-able quality. Consequently, it is oflimited use for some areas. Even incases where good images are avail-able, thick vegetation and tree covermay limit the use of both satellite im-ages and aerial photography. Finally,

while the images provided by GoogleEarth may help in locating and map-

ping sites, archaeologists still needto excavate.

Points to Ponder

1. What type of information do aerialphotography and satellite imagesprovide compared to archaeologi-cal excavation? What are the limita-tions of each method?

2. Consider the data that satellite im-agery provides in light of the discus-sion of research designs and thequestions archaeologists might ask.How do these questions shape thetype of method employed?

Anthropologists at Work

Explore the Concept on

myanthrolab.com


16/25


activities may cover sites with thick layers ofsoil. A clear illustration of this is seen in tells (settlement mounds) in the Near East, whichsometimes consist of archaeological depositscovering more than 100 square acres manyfeet deep.

Dating MethodsHow old is it? This s imple question is fundamental tothe study of the past. Without the ability to order tem-porally the developments and events that occurredin the past, there is no way to assess evolutionarychange, cultural developments, or technological in-novations. Paleoanthropologists and archaeologistsemploy many different dating techniques. Some ofthese are basic to the interpretation of both the fossilrecord and archaeological sites. Others are more ap-propriate for objects of certain ages or for particularkinds of materials (for example, volcanic stone, as op-posed to organic material). Hence, certain techniquesare more typically associated with archaeological re-search than paleoanthropological research, and vice

versa. In any given project , several dif ferent datingtechniques are used in conjunction with one anotherto independently validate the age of the materials

Bones and other archaeological remains are oftenfragmentary and must be excavated with greatcare. Here, an archaeologist works on one of theapproximately 200 bodies—thought to date to pre-Columbian times—found at the construction site fora subway in Mexico City.

Archaeologists taking notes froman excavation.

being examined. Dating methods can be divided intotwo broad categories that incorporate a variety of spe-cific dating techniques: relative dating and numericaldating. Accurate dating of discoveries depends uponboth methods.

Relative DatingRelative dating refers to dating methods that determine

whether one particular fossil, artifact, fossil locality, orsite dates before or after another. Relative dating meth-ods do not provide an actual date, just an age relative tosomething else. The most basic relative dating methodis stratigraphic dating , a technique pioneered bythe seventeenth-century Danish scientist Niels Stensen(1638–1687). Today, Stensen is better known by the lati-nized version of his name, Nicholas Steno. Steno was

the first person to suggest that the hardrock where fossils are found had oncebeen soft sediments that had graduallysolidified. Because sediments had beendeposited in layers, or strata , Steno ar-gued that each successive layer was

younger than the layers underneath. Ste-no’s law of supraposition states that inany succession of rock layers, the lowestrocks have been there the longest and

the upper rocks have been in place forprogressively shorter periods. This as-sumption forms the basis of stratigraphicdating.

Steno was concerned with the studyof geological deposits, but stratigraphic


17/25


dating is also of key importance in dating archaeologi-cal materials (Figure 2.4). An archaeological site presentsa complex layer cake of stratigraphic levels representingthe accumulation of cultural material, such as trash andhousing debris, as well as natural strata resulting fromflooding, the decomposition of organic material, and thelike. Layers associated with human occupation often ac-cumulate to striking depths.

Like all relative dating methods, stratigraphic datingdoes not allow researchers to assign an actual numericalage to a fossil or artifact. Rather, it indicates only whetherone fossil is older or younger than another within thesame stratigraphic sequence. This technique is essentialto paleoanthropological and archaeological interpretationbecause it allows researchers to evaluate change throughtime. However, researchers must take notice of any dis-turbances that may have destroyed the order of geologi-cal or archaeological deposits. Disturbances in the Earth’scrust, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, can shift or dis-rupt stratigraphic layers. Archaeological sites may be rav-aged by erosion, burrowing animals, and human activity.

Faunal Succession One of the first people torecord the location of fossils systematically was WilliamSmith (1769–1839), the “father” of English geology(Winchester 2002). An engineer at a time when England

was being transformed by the construction of railwaylines and canals, Smith noticed that as rock layers wereexposed by the construction, distinct fossils occurred inthe same relative order again and again. He soon foundthat he could arrange rock samples from different areasin the correct stratigraphic order solely on the basis of thefossils they contained. Smith had discovered the princi-ple of faunal succession (literally, “animal” succession).

A significant scientific milestone, Smith’s observations weremade sixty years before Darwin proposed his evolutionary

theories to explain how and why life-forms changedthrough time.

Since Smith’s era, paleontologists have studied thou-sands of fossil localities around the world. Information onthe relative ages of fossils from these sites provides a meansof correlating the relative ages of different fossil localitiesand also casts light on the relative ages of fossils that are notfound in stratigraphic context. Placing fossils in a relativetime frame in this way is known as faunal correlation .

Palynology Remains of plant species, which havealso evolved over time, can be used for relative datingas well. Palynology is the study of pollen grains, theminute male reproductive parts of plants. By examiningpreserved pollen grains, we can trace the adaptations

vegetation underwent in a region from one period toanother. In addition to helping scientists establish therelative ages of strata, studies of both plant and animalfossils offer crucial clues to the reconstruction of the en-

vironments where humans and human ancestors lived.

Relative Dating Methods for Bones Scientistscan determine the relative age of bones by measuring theelements of fluorine, uranium, and nitrogen in the fossilspecimens. These tests, which can be used together, aresometimes referred to as the FUN trio . Fluorine and ura-

nium occur naturally in groundwater and gradually col-lect in bones after they are buried. Once absorbed, thefluorine and uranium remain in the bones, steadily accu-mulating over time. By measuring the amounts of theseabsorbed elements, scientists can estimate the lengthof time the bones have been buried. Nitrogen works inthe opposite way. The bones of living animals containapproximately 4 percent nitrogen, and when the bonesstart to decay, the concentration of nitrogen steadilydecreases. By calculating the percentage of nitrogen

Aerial photography often allows the identication of archaeological sites that may be invisible on the ground. This aerial photograph of arecently plowed corneld in Perry County, southern Illinois, led to the discovery of the Grier Site. Subsequent excavation revealed that thsite had been occupied from the Archaic to the Mississippian; the burials date to about 1000B.C.Source: Courtesy of Larry Kruckman, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.


18/25


remaining in a fossilized bone, scientists can calculate itsapproximate age.

The FUN trio techniques all constitute relative datingmethods because they are influenced by local environ-mental factors. The amounts of fluorine and uranium ingroundwater differ from region to region, and variablessuch as temperature and the chemicals present in thesurrounding soil affect the rate at which nitrogen dis-sipates. Because of this variation, relative concentra-tions of fluorine, uranium, and nitrogen in two fossilsfrom different areas of the world may be similar de-spite the fact that they differ significantly in age. The

techniques are thus of greatest value in establishingthe relative age of fossils from the same deposit. To some

extent, these methods have been supplanted by moremodern, numerical dating methods but they neverthelesspresent an important alternative means of validating therelative ages of fossil finds (see “The Piltdown Fraud” inChapter 5).

Seriation Unlike the methods discussed thus far thatutilize geological, chemical, or paleontological principles,seriation is a relative dating technique based on the studyof archaeological materials. Simply stated, seriation is a

Trash pit 19th-centuryEuropean ceramics

1900 coinGas line 1977

Sewer pipe 1966

1885 coin

1843 coin

Eighteenth-century English wine bottle

Well

Post fragmentDendrochronology

1250 A.D.

Stone toolseriation5000-7000 BP

Smoking pit with corn cobCarbon 14dated

1300 A.D.

Sterile glacial sandno archaeological materials

Hearth with charcoalCarbon 14 dated to6000 BP

Figure 2.4 Archaeological materials and the remnants of human occupation often accumulate to striking depth. Thishypothetical prole illustrates the potentially complex nature of the archaeological record and how different techniques mightbe combined to date discoveries.


19/25


dating technique based on the assumption that any par-ticular artifact, attribute, or style will appear, graduallyincrease in popularity until it reaches a peak, and then

progressively decrease. Archaeologists measure thesechanges by comparing the relative percentages of certainattributes or styles in different stratigraphic levels in a siteor in different sites. Using the principle of increasing anddecreasing popularity of attributes, archaeologists areable to place categories of artifacts in a relative chron-ological order. Seriation was particularly important forchronologically ordering ceramics and stone tools beforethe advent of many of the numerical dating techniquesdiscussed on the following page.

The principles of seriation can be illustrated byexamining stylistic changes in New England gravestonesof the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.

Unlike many artifacts, gravestones can be closely dated.To validate the principle of seriation, archaeologist James Deetz charted how colonial gravestone designschanged through time (Deetz 1996). His study of grave-stones in Stoneham Cemetery, Massachusetts, as illus-trated in Figure 2.5 , demonstrates the validity of themethod. In the course of a century, death’s-head mo-tifs were gradually replaced by cherub designs, whichin turn were replaced by urn and willow decorations.The study also illustrates how local variation in beliefs

GEORGE FLETCHER BASS:Underwater Archaeologist

G eorge Fletcher Bass is oneof the pioneers of underwa-ter archaeology—a field thathe actually did not set out to studyand, indeed, a field that was virtuallyunrecognized as a discipline when heentered it. Although he was always fas-cinated with the sea and diving, Bassbegan his career working on land sites,earning a master’s degree in NearEastern archaeology at Johns HopkinsUniversity in 1955. He then attendedthe American School of Classical Stud-ies at Athens and excavated at thesites of Lerna, Greece, and Gordion,

Turkey. Following mil itary service inKorea, Bass began his doctoral stud-ies in classical archaeology at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania. It was there, in1960, that he was asked by ProfessorRodney S. Young if he would learn toscuba dive in order to direct the ex-cavation of a Bronze Age shipwreckdiscovered off Cape Geldonya, Turkey.Bass’s excavations of this site were therst time an ancient shipwreck was ex-cavated in its entirety under the water.

During the 1960s, Bass went on toexcavate two Byzantine shipwrecksoff Yassi Ada, Turkey. At these siteshe developed a variety of specializedmethods for underwater excavation,including new mapping techniques, a

submersible decompression cham-ber, and a two-person submarine. In

1967, his team was the rst to locatean ancient shipwreck using sidescan-ning sonar. In addition to setting stan-dards for underwater archaeologicalresearch, these excavations capturedpopular imagination and revealed ship-wrecks as time capsules containinga spectacular array of artifacts, manyunrecovered from terrestrial sites(Throckmorton 1962; Bass 1963, 1973).

Afte r completing his doctorate in1964, Bass joined the faculty at theUniversity of Pennsylvania. He re-mained there until 1973, when heleft to found the Institute of Nautical

Archaeology (INA), which has been af-liated with Texas A&M University since1976. Under his guidance, the INA hasbecome one of the world’s premierprograms in underwater archaeology.

The institute has conducted researchthroughout the world on shipwrecksand sites of a diversity of time periods.Bass has continued to focus on ship-wrecks in Turkey, where he is an hon-orary citizen of the town of Bodrum.Some of his more recent projects in-

clude a fourteenth-centuryB.C. wreckwith a cargo of copper, ivory, tin, glass,and ebony, and a medieval ship witha large cargo of Islamic glass (Basset al. 2004). Bass has written or editedten books and is the author of morethan one hundred articles. Through his

publications, he has introduced botharchaeologists and the wider public tothe potential and excitement of under-water archaeology.

Because of his unique contribu-tion to underwater archaeology, Basshas been widely recognized and hasreceived awards from the NationalGeographic Society, the Explorers’Club, the Archaeological Institute of

America, and the Society for Histori-cal Archaeology. President George W.Bush presented him with the NationalMedal for Science in 2002.

Anthropologists at Work

Dr. George Bass, after a dive.

Explore the Concept on

myanthrolab.com


20/25


and trade patterns may influence the popularity of anattribute.

Numerical, or Absolute, DatingIn contrast to relative dating techniques, numerical dat-ing methods (sometimes also referred to as “absolute”

or “chronometric” methods) provide actual ages. For re-cent time periods, historical sources such as calendarsand dating systems that were used by ancient peoplesprovide numerical dates. Mayan and Egyptian sites, forexample, can often be dated by inscriptions carved intothe monuments themselves (see the discussion of Writ-ing Systems in Chapter 9). However, such written recordsonly extend back a few thousand years and these sourcesare not available for many regions. Researchers haveconsequently explored a variety of methods to establishthe age of fossil finds and archaeological discoveries.

During the nineteenth century, scientists experi-mented with many methods designed to pinpoint thenumerical age of the Earth itself. Many of these meth-ods were based on observations of the physical world.Studies of erosion rates, for instance, indicated that ithad taken millions of years to cut clefts in the earth

like the Grand Canyon in the United States. Other strat-egies were based on the rates at which salt had ac-cumulated in the oceans, the Earth had cooled, andgeological sediments had formed (Prothero 1989). Byobserving current conditions and assuming a standardrate at which these processes had occurred, scientistscalculated the amount of time represented. These earlyapproaches were flawed by a limited understanding ofthe complexity of natural processes involved and therange of local conditions. Therefore, these techniquesat best provide only crude relative dating methods. Incontrast to these early researchers, today’s scientistshave a wide variety of highly precise methods of datingpaleontological and archaeological finds (Aitken 1990;Brothwell and Pollard 2001).

Several of the most important numerical dating tech-niques used today are based on radioactive decay , aprocess in which radioisotopes , unstable atoms of certainelements, break down or decay by throwing off sub-atomic particles and energy over time. These changes canproduce either a different isotope of the same element oranother element entirely. In terms of dating, the signifi-cance of radioactive decay is that it occurs at a set rate re-gardless of environmental conditions, such as temperaturefluctuations, amount of groundwater, or the depth belowsurface. The amount of decay that has taken place canbe measured with a device called a mass spectrometer .

Hence, by calculating how much decay has occurred in ageological specimen or an artifact, scientists can assign anumerical age to it.

Radiocarbon Dating Radiocarbon dating, alsoknown as carbon 14 dating, is perhaps the best knownand most common numerical dating technique used byarchaeologists. The technique of using radioactive decayas a dating tool was pioneered by Willard Libby, whoreceived the 1960 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his workon radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating , as its nameimplies, is based on the decay of carbon 14 ( 14 C), a radio-active (unstable) isotope of carbon that eventually decays

into nitrogen. The concentration of carbon 14 in a livingorganism is comparable to that of the surrounding atmo-sphere and is absorbed by the organism as carbon diox-ide (CO 2 ). When the organism dies, the intake of CO 2ends. Thus, as the carbon 14 in the organism begins todecay, it is not replaced by additional radiocarbon fromthe atmosphere.

Like other radioisotopes, carbon 14 decays at aknown rate that can be expressed in terms of its half- life , the interval of time required for half of the radioiso-tope to decay. The half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.

Figure 2.5 The seriation of gravestones in a New England cem-

etery by archaeologist James Deetz illustrates the growth andgradual decline in popularity of a closely dated series of decorativemotifs.Source: From In Small Things Forgotten by James Deetz. Copyright © 1996 byJames Deetz. Used by permission of Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc.


21/25


By measuring the quantity of carbon 14 in a specimen,scientists can determine the amount of time that haselapsed since the organism died.

Radiocarbon dating is of particular importance to ar-chaeologists because it can be used to date organic mat-ter that contains carbon, including fragments of ancient

wooden tools, charcoal from ancient fires, and skeletalmaterial. Dates of up to 80,000 years old have been ob-tained, but the technique is generally limited to datingmaterials less than about 60,000 years old (Plastino et al.2001; Taylor and Southon 2007). The minuscule amountsof radiocarbon remaining in materials older than thismake measurement difficult. Because of the time periodrepresented, radiocarbon is of limited use to paleoanthro-pologists who may be dealing with fossil finds millions of

years old. However, radiocarbon dating has become ofgreat importance to archaeologists who deal with materi-als of more recent age.

Potassium-Argon and Fission-Track Dating Several isotopes that exhibit radioactive decay are pres-ent in rocks of volcanic origin. Some of these isotopesdecay at very slow rates over billions of years. Two ra-diometric techniques that have proven of particular helpto paleoanthropologists and archaeologists studying earlyhuman ancestors are potassium-argon and fission-trackdating. These methods do not date fossil material itself.Rather, they can be used to date volcanic ash and lavaflows that are associated with fossil finds. Fortunately,many areas that have produced fossil discoveries were

volcanically active in the past and can be dated by usingthese techniques. These methods have been employedat such fossil localities as the Fayum Depression in Egypt

(see Chapter 4), Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania and Hadar,Ethiopia (see Chapter 5).

In potassium-argon dating , scientists measure thedecay of a radioisotope of potassium, known as potas-sium 40 ( 40 K), into an inert gas, argon ( 40 Ar). During theintense heat of a volcanic eruption, any argon presentin a mineral is released, leaving only the potassium. Asthe rock cools, the potassium 40 begins to decay intoargon. Because the half-life of 40 K is 1.3 billion years,the potassium-argon method can be used to date veryancient finds, and has thus been important in datingearly hominid fossils. Although this technique has beenused to date volcanic rocks a few thousand years old,

the amount of argon is so small that it is more commonlyused on samples dating over 100,000 years (McDougalland Harrison 1999).

Fission-track dating is based on the decay of aradioactive isotope of uranium ( 238 U) that releases en-ergy at a regular rate. In certain minerals, microscopicscars, or tracks, from the spontaneous fissioning of 238 Uare produced. By counting the number of tracks in asample, scientists can estimate fairly accurately whenthe rocks were formed. Fission-track dating is usedto determine the age of geological samples between

300,000 and 4.5 billion years old, and thus it can provide independent confirmation on the age of strata us-ing potassium-argon dating. Although this is generally atechnique of more use to paleoanthropologists, it mayalso be used on manufactured glasses. Dates have beenobtained on glass and pottery glazes less than 2,000

years old, and so it presents a technique of potentialhelp to archaeologists studying the more recent past(Aitken 1990).

Thermoluminescence Dating This datingmethod is also based on radioactive decay, but the tech-nique operates slightly differently than the methods dis-cussed above. It is based on the amount of electronstrapped in crystalline minerals. The electrons are pri-marily produced by the decay of three elements pres-ent in varying amounts in geological deposits: uranium,thorium, and a radioactive isotope of potassium ( 40 K)Hence, for accuracy, thermoluminescence dates shouldinclude an evaluation of the radioactivity in the surround-ing soil so that the background radiation present in thedeposit can be controlled for. As these elements decay,electrons are trapped in the crystals of the surroundingmatrix. In order to be dated using the technique, arti-facts must has been heated, as in the case of the firingof ceramics. Heating releases any trapped electrons; de-cay subsequently begins again and electrons once againstart to accumulate in the crystal matrix of the object. Bycalculating the rate at which electrons have accumulatedand measuring the amount of electrons trapped in a sam-ple, the age can be determined.

The importance of thermoluminescence dating lies inthe fact that it can be used to date artifacts themselves,

as opposed to associated stratigraphic deposits, as in thecase of potassium argon dating. Thermoluminescencedating has been particularly useful in dating ceramics— one of the most common artifacts found on sites dat-ing to the last 10,000 years. It has, however, also beenused in cases where stone tools have been heated duringtheir manufacture or time of use (some stone becomeseasier to work if heated). Similarly, it has been used incases where the clay or stone of a hearth area has beenheated; the key once again being that the sample hasbeen heated at the time of use or manufacture to set theamount of accumulated electrons to zero. Dates of tensor hundreds of thousands of years have been obtained

on stone tools (Aitken et al. 1993). The method has alsoproven very useful in differentiating modern fakes fromancient ceramic objects.

Dendrochronology Dendrochronology is aunique type of numerical dating based on the annualgrowth rings found in some species of trees ( Figure 2.6 )Because a ring corresponds to a single year, the age of atree can be determined by counting the number of rings.This principle was recognized as early as the late eigh-teenth century by the Reverend Manasseh Cutler, who


22/25


used it to infer that a Native American mound site inOhio was at least 463 years old. The modern science ofdendrochronology was pioneered in the early twentiethcentury by A. E. Douglass using well-preserved woodfrom the American Southwest.

Today tree-ring dating is a great deal more sophis-ticated than counting tree rings. In addition to record-ing annual growth, tree rings also preserve a recordof environmental history: thick rings represent years

when the tree received ample rain; thin rings denotedry spells. In more temperate regions, the temperatureand the amount of sunlight may affect the thickness ofthe rings. Trees of the same species in a localized area

will generally show a s imilar pattern of thick and thinrings. This pattern can then be overlapped with patternsfrom successively older trees to build up a master den-drochronology sequence. In the American Southwest,

a sequence using the bristlecone pine has now beenextended to almost 9,000 years ago. Work on oak se-quences in Ireland and Germany has been used to cre-ate a master dendrochronology sequence dating backover 10,000 years.

The importance of this method is manifest. Dendro-chronology has proven of great significance in areas suchas the American Southwest, where the dry conditionsoften preserve wood. The growth rings in fragments of

wood from archaeological sites can be compared to themaster dendrochronology sequence, and the date thetree was cut down can be calculated. Even more impor-tant, dendrochronology provides an independent meansof evaluating radiocarbon dating. Fragments dated byboth techniques confirm the importance of radiocar-bon as a dating method. However, wood dated by bothtechniques indicates that carbon 14 dates more than

PRESENT

1900 A.D.

1800 A.D.

1700 A.D.

1600 A.D.

1500 A.D.

1400 A.D.

Modern Tree

Beam from an Old House

Preserved Woodfrom Archaeological Site

Figure 2.6 Dendrochronology is based on the careful examination of distinct patterns of thin and thick growth rings thatpreserve a record of a region’s environmental history. As illustrated here, samples of wood from different contexts may bepieced together to provide a master dendrochronology. Fragments of wood from archaeological sites can then be comparedto this dendrochronology to determine the period in which the tree lived.


23/25


3,000 years old are increasingly younger than their ac-tual age. The reason for this lies in the amount of carbon14 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Willard Libby’s initial radio-carbon dating calculations were based on the assumptionthat the concentration was constant over time, but we nowknow that it has varied. Dendrochronologies have allowed

scientists to correct, or calibrate, radiocarbon dates, ren-dering them more accurate.

Interpretations About the Past Views of the pas t are , unavoidably, tied to the pres-ent. As we discussed in Chapter 1, anthropologists tryto validate their observations by being explicit abouttheir assumptions. Prevailing social and economic con-ditions, political pressures, and theoretical perspectivesall may affect interpretation. During the early twenti-eth century, bits and pieces of physical anthropology,archaeology, and linguistic information were muddledtogether to support the myth of a superior German race(Pringle 2006). Gustav Kossina, initially trained as aphilologist, distorted archaeological interpretations tobolster chronologies that showed development star tingin Germany and spreading outward to other parts ofEurope.

Archaeological and historical information was alsoused to validate racist apartheid rule in South Africa.South African textbooks often proffered the idea thatblack, Bantu-speaking farmers migrating from the northand white and Dutch-speaking settlers coming from thesouthwest arrived in the South African hinterland atthe same time. This interpretation had clear relevanceto the present: Both groups had equal claim to the land.

However, over the past two decades, a new generation

of archaeologists has knocked the underpinning from thiscontrived history (Hall 1988). Archaeological evidence in-dicates that the ancestors of the black South Africans hadmoved into the region by 200 A.D., 1,500 years before theinitial European settlement.

In these cases, versions of the past were con-

structed with dangerous effects on the present. Morecommonly, errors in interpretation are less intentionaland more subtle. All researchers carry their own per-sonal and cultural bias with them. Human societies arecomplex, and how this complexity is manifested ar-chaeologically varies. These factors make the evalua-tion of interpretations challenging, and differences ofopinion frequently occur.

Although there is no formula that can be used toevaluate all paleoanthropological and archaeologicalmaterials, there are useful guidelines. As seen in the pre-ceding chapter, a key aspect of anthropological researchis a systematic, scientific approach to data. Outmoded,incorrect interpretations can be revealed through thetesting of hypotheses and replaced by more convinc-ing observations. The validity of a particular interpre-tation can be strengthened by the use of independentlines of evidence; if they lead to similar conclusions,the validity of the interpretation is strengthened. Aca-demic books and articles submitted for publication arereviewed by other researchers, and authors are chal-lenged to clarify points and strengthen observations.In many cases the evaluation of a particular theory orhypothesis must await the accumulation of data. Manyregions of the world and different aspects of the pastare virtually unstudied. Therefore, any theories aboutthese areas or developments must remain tentative and

subject to reevaluation.

Summary

Paleoanthropologists and archaeologists examine dif-ferent aspects of the human past. Paleoanthropologistsconcentrate on the evolution of humans as a biologi-cal species and the behavior of early human ancestors,

whereas archaeologis ts are concerned with pas t hu-man cultures—their lifestyles, technology, and socialsystems—through the material remains they left behind.To ensure that data relevant to the paleoanthropologists’and archaeologists’ questions are recovered, projects be-gin with a research design that sets out the objectivesand formulates the strategy for recovering the pertinentinformation. Both subdisciplines overlap and utilize ex-perts from other fields to provide a holistic interpretationof the past.

Paleoanthropologists work with fossils, the preservedtraces of past life. Places where fossils are found aretermed fossil localities . The fossil record is far from com-plete; only a small portion of the creatures that have livedare preserved. Nevertheless, an impressive record of pastlife has survived. Careful study and improved technologyreveal minute fossils of shellfish, algae, and pollen andimages of the delicate structure in bones. Paleoanthropol-ogy integrates the fields of geology, paleontology, andarchaeology, as well as physical anthropology, to providea more holistic interpretation of the emergence and thebehavior of early human ancestors.

The archaeological record encompasses all the mate-rial traces of past cultures. Places of past human activity

Study and Review on myanthrolab.com


24/25


that are preserved in the ground are called archaeological sites . Sites contain artifacts (objects made or modifiedby humans), as well as other traces of past human activityand a record of the environmental conditions that affectedthe site. In studying archaeological materials, archaeologistsare particularly interested in the context, the specific loca-tion of finds and associated materials. Understanding thecontext is of key importance in determining the age, uses,and meanings of archaeological materials. Specialized fieldsof study in archaeology may require special approaches ortechniques. For example, historical archaeologists draw on

written records and oral traditions to help interpret archae-ological remains. Underwater archaeologists require specialequipment to locate and excavate sites.

Archaeological sites provide important informationabout the past, for example, the use of natural resources,trade patterns, and political organization. Sites can be lo-cated in many different ways. Often traces of a site maysurvive on the ground, and local informants, maps, and

previous archaeological reports may be of help. To dis-cover sites, archaeologists may survey areas, looking forany indications of archaeological remains. Surface exami-nations may be supplemented by subsurface testing toidentify buried deposits. Technological aids, such as themagnetometer or resistivity meter, may also help archae-ologists identify artifacts and features beneath the ground.

Depending on a project’s objectives, archaeologicalsites may be targeted for excavation. Digging is alwaysundertaken with great care, and information about the

work is carefully recorded. Before excavation, a site is divided into a grid, which allows each artifact to be carefully

located. The depth of an excavation depends on a num-ber of variables, including the type of site, the length ofoccupation, the soils present, and the area’s environmen-tal history.

Dating of fossils and archaeological materials is ofkey importance in the interpretation of the past. Withoutthe ability to place finds in their relative ages, there isno way of assessing evolutionary change, technologicalinnovations, or cultural deve

The Record of the Past.pdf

Documents

Transcript of The Record of the Past.pdf