About 55.6 million kilometers from the moon orbits another trove of space archeology: Mars (Ropelato, 2023). Named after the Roman god of war, Mars carries its own mythology. However, many of the stories which actually surround Mars, the planet, are relatively modern, brought about by space exploration and imaging of the red giant. Some of Mars’s earliest archeology begins with an Italian astronomer, Giovanni Schiaparelli. After close observation of Mars, or as close as was possible in the 1870s, Schiaparelli claimed to have found canals on the surface of Mars (Figure 1), an observation many others took to be evidence of extraterrestrial life (Tietz, 2019). Despite later evidence which would disprove the presence of any sort of canals on Mars, the possibility of Martians had already crept into literature and media alike. From cartoons to comics to horror movies, Mars had made its way irrevocably into popular culture. 

However, the progression away from the highly fictionalized version of Mars has not been a linear one. Though Schiaparelli’s theory was quickly disproven, yet another theory took its place. A century later, an orbiter sent by NASA named Viking 1 captured a series of images of what would come to be known as the region Cydonia (David S., 2019). Seemingly resembling a face, a geological feature captured in an image sparked conversations from communities across the globe. Though NASA officials insisted the geographic feature was nothing more than exactly that, a pair of scientists were convinced otherwise, publishing a book titled Unusual Martian Surface Features. Although, once again, more recent imaging has confirmed the feature to be a rock formation, the general public’s love for conspiracy gave a great deal of attention to this theory. Once again, Mars had found its way into the news and media. 

Further reading on Mars in mythology and popular culture can be found at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/art-culture/mars-as-seen-from-earth-the-red-planet-in-pop-culture-101620404367145.html 

The investigation into such theories has left a great deal of actual archeological artifacts both in space and on the surface of Mars. From the previously mentioned Viking 1 to more recent spacecrafts, such as the Opportunity and Curiosity rovers (Figure 2), man-made artifacts litter the desert planet (“Mars Exploration Rovers,” 2019). The purpose of the research these rovers conducted not only served to discover more about the planet Mars, but to apply said research to our own planet. Found to once have been as inhabitable as earth, complete with oceans, rivers, and a thick atmosphere, The Mars we know now has changed quite a bit (Drake, 2021). Research of Mars has aided scientists in understanding the evolution of planets and the future of our own earth. 

To find a comprehensive list of all spacecrafts sent to investigate Mars by NASA, read: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars-exploration/missions/?page=0&per_page=99&order=date+desc&search= 

References

Anderson, David S. “Archaeology on Mars – from the Fantastical to the Real.” Forbes, February 18, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidanderson/2019/02/15/archaeology-on-mars-from-the-fantastical-to-the-real/?sh=7618bbac4cd1. 

Drake, Nadia. “Why We Explore Mars-and What Decades of Missions Have Revealed.” Science, May 4, 2021. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mars-exploration-article?loggedin=true&rnd=1701641216737. 

“Mars Exploration Rovers.” NASA, September 7, 2019. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars-exploration/missions/mars-exploration-rovers/. 

“‘Mars, Face On.’ Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Encyclopedia.Com. 15 Nov. 2023 . https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mars-face. 

Ropelato, Jerry. “How Far Is Mars from the Moon?” WhiteClouds, September 10, 2023. https://www.whiteclouds.com/faq/how-far-is-mars-from-the-moon/#:~:text=Since%20the%20Moon%20orbits%20Earth,(approximately%2034.6%20million%20miles). 

Tietz, Tabea. “Giovanni Schiaparelli and the Martian Canals.” SciHi Blog, March 14, 2019. http://scihi.org/giovanni-schiaparelli-martian-canals/. 

Despite the overwhelming number of Paleolithic era tools found by archeologists, evidence points to tools which archeologists may never actually find or, sadly, may no longer exist. Museum shelves and archives overflow with Clovis point spear heads, Acheulian hand axes, and impossibly small, but also impossibly old, arrow heads. What about the tools long since lost to time? How do archeologists know for certain that at one point in time, they did in fact exist?

Wood Imprints

Although stone may last for centuries, wood typically does not. As an organic material, it degrades easily and quickly, leaving very little for archeologists to uncover years in the future. However, as the wood gets buried, and then later degrades, a hollow space is left where the wood used to be, preserving the shape of whatever has since been lost (Vallverdú, 2010). Archeologists can then fill this hollow with plaster, effectively making a copy of the object (Riel-Salvatore, 2011). Thus, archeologists can confirm the presence of objects or structures used by people thousands of years prior, though such objects or structures have long since deteriorated. To learn more about how these hollows are created, visit http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/2011/09/mousterian-wooden-spade-from-abric.html. 

Rock Paintings

Additional evidence of tools once used by ancient peoples includes cave paintings. One such tool is the boomerang. Although few complete boomerangs from the paleolithic era have ever been found, the oldest having been preserved under unique circumstances as it was found in a swamp, most evidence that such a tool was used comes from rock paintings (“Earliest evidence of the boomerang in Australia”, 2022). One such rock painting can be found in “a northeast Kimberley rock shelter on Balanggarra Country,” depicting human figures, animals native to the area, and boomerangs (Finch, 2021). To learn more about the significance of the Kimberly rock shelter, visit https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-oldest-known-aboriginal-rock-paintings. 

Bone Marks

Finally, marks found on the bones of ancient peoples or animals can serve as indications for the presence of tools or weapons. The skull of a 1,000 year old Saxon warrior is a prime example. The skull was excavated from a site in East Sussex and is seen to have six distinct markings which archaeologists believe to have been made by a sword (Griffiths, 2014). Though the sword itself has likely never been recovered, the evidence of its existence can be found through the dead it left behind.

Ultimately, just as the physical presence of ancient tools and weapons are crucial in creating a clearer picture of cultures and peoples alive long before us, so are the tools and weapons archeologists may never find. 

References

“Earliest evidence of the boomerang in Australia.” 2022. National Museum of Australia. http://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/earliest-evidence-of-the-boomerang-in-australia. 

Finch, Damien, Andy Gleadow, Janet Hergt, Helen Green, Pauline Heaney, Cecilia Myers, Peter Veth, Sam Harper, Sven Ouzman, and Vladimir A. Levchenko. 2021. “Australia’s oldest known Aboriginal rock paintings | Pursuit by The University of Melbourne.” Pursuit. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-oldest-known-aboriginal-rock-paintings. 

Griffiths, Sarah. 2014. “1000 Year Old Saxon Skull Shows Six Sword Wounds.” Eras Gone. http://erasgone.blogspot.com/2014/05/1000-year-of-saxon-skull-shows-six.html. 

Renfrew, Colin, and Peter Bahn. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. Thames and Hudson, 2012. 

Riel-Salvatore, Julien. A Mousterian Wooden Spade from Abric Romani, Spain, 14 Sept. 2011, averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/2011/09/mousterian-wooden-spade-from-abric.html. 

Vallverdú, Josep, Manuel Vaquero, Isabel Cáceres, Ethel Allué, Jordi Rosell, Palmira Saladié, Gema Chacón, et al. “Sleeping Activity Area within the Site Structure of Archaic Human Groups: Evidence from Abric Romaní Level N Combustion Activity Areas.” Current Anthropology 51, no. 1 (2010): 137–45. https://doi.org/10.1086/649499.