The Homo neanderthalensis are often regarded as the long-lost cousins of the Homo sapiens sapiens. However, it is an ongoing debate whether the Neanderthals were a sub-species of humans, or a separate species by themselves. The analysis of Neanderthal DNA has provided the key to the many questions surrounding this member of the Homo genus.

The nuclear DNA of Neanderthals has been studied extensively in the Neanderthal genome project, which gave the conclusion that modern non-African human populations have traces of Neanderthal DNA. To explain this, Green et al. argues that interbreeding happened between Neanderthals and humans shortly after the ancestors of modern non-Africans migrated out of Africa. Hence modern African populations do not show any Neanderthal DNA traces. However, fossil records did not place humans and Neanderthals in the same geographic region at this period.

In 2015 Neanderthal remains dating to about 55 thousand years ago were discovered in Manot Cave, Israel. This bridged the gap between the fossil record and DNA record and provided evidence for both species inhabiting the region at the same period, hence inbreeding was possible (Hershkovitz 2015).

Figure 1: Geographic Location of Manot Cave, Israel

Other sections of Neanderthal DNA have also been researched on. Mitochondria, a type of cell organelle, contains small DNA loops (mtDna), which is only passed along by females (Renfrew 2018). The analysis of mtDNA from Neanderthals fossils shows that the Neanderthals have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool. Yet this only disapproves the flow of DNA from Neanderthals to humans through maternal lines (Wang 2013). The Y chromosome of Neanderthals has also been studied, primarily by Mendez et al. in 2016. Unlike mtDNA, Y chromosomes are passed along the paternal line. The data suggests that the Neanderthal Y chromosome is not present in modern human samples at all. Mendez concluded that mutations made the Neanderthals genetically incompatible to humans and consequently resulted in the loss of the Neanderthal Y chromosome in present-day humans.

However, for all that DNA analysis tells us, it does not tell us much about the material culture of the Neanderthals. This is where archaeology comes in. The sites and artifacts can tell us how the Neanderthals lived, what they ate, what technology they used. They used stone and wooden tools but unlike early humans, their living areas did not have specific activity sites. Their diets were highly reliant on meat, as has been revealed by isotopic analysis of their remains. It has also been argued that the rarity of “symbolic” objects such as art or ornaments in Neanderthal sites indicates “a lack of human cognitive ability and language” (Harvati 2010).

Figure 2: 337,000 – 300,000 years old wooden spear from Schöningen

To summarize, present-day humans outside of Africa show traces of Neanderthal DNA, but there are no Neanderthal mtDNA or Neanderthal Y chromosomes in modern human populations. The current consensus among anthropologists is that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens are indeed separate species, although that might change with further research and with the discovery of more Neanderthal samples.

Further information on early hominids and the great human migration.

Images: Figure 1 and Figure 2

References cited:

Green, Richard E., et al.

2010  A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science 328: 710-722

Link to “A Draft Sequence of Neandertal Genome”

Harvati, Katerina

2010  Neanderthals. Evo Edu Outreach 3: 367–376

Link to “Neanderthals”

Hershkovitz, Israel, et al.

2015  Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans. Nature 520: 216–219

Link to “Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans”

Mendez, Fernando l., G. David Poznik, Sergi Castellano, and Carlos D. Bustamante

2016  The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 98(4): 728-734

Link to “The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosome”

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn

2018  Archaeology Essentials Theories/ Methods/ Practice. Thames &Hudson, London.

Wang, Chuan-Chao, Sara E. Farina, and Hui Li

2012  Neanderthal DNA and modern human origins. Quaternary International 295: 126-129

Link to “Neanderthal DNA and modern human origins”

The Easter Island is located at the southeastern Pacific Ocean, 3512 kilometers away from the nearest continental point in Chile. It is inhabited by the Rapa Nui people, whose ancestors in around 1250-1500 AD built the famous Easter Island Moai–large stone statues averagely weighed 14 tons and measured 4 meters high. These large statues stood on their platforms called “ahu”, near the periphery of the island. They were not made there, since no quarry large enough near the periphery of the island can provide such huge stone for carving, thus an inevitable questions rose: how were these giant stone statues moved from the quarry to the platforms at a time that didn’t have mobile facilities?

Many possible theories was raised. Some people suggest that they were pulled lying down on their back entirely by human forces, or they were placed on timber columns to roll to the destinations. The most wide-spread theory was put forward by archaeologists Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo, who did a series of experiment to reproduce the process of moving the Moai. The two archaeologists found out that some statues were also left on the ancient roads of the island, facing downwards, showing an unfinished transporting process, and the fact that these statues can’t stand on their own without the special platform “ahu”. These statues have D-shaped flat bottom bases, but the bases forbid the Moai to stand vertically to the ground. They measured a 14°angle at the bottom of the Moai, which made the statues leaning forward. Why made this angle that was harder for the statues to stand? Hunt and Lipo then hypothesized that the angle was made for the transportation of the Moai.

The space between the statue Moai and the paltform was stuffed with stones so that it could stand vertically

In the oral history of the Rapa Nui people, the Moai were not “moved” but “walked”. Hunt and Lipo took this into concern. They also indicated that the deep groove of the eyes of the statues can be tied around with ropes, which probably was how the Rapa Nui ancestors pull the statues to turn and twist on the ground to “walk”. They replicate a statues weighed 5 tons, and found volunteers to move it. It was placed upright, as the history suggested, “standing” on the ground. Three groups of ropes were tied on the groove of the eye socket of the replica, and volunteers cooperated to pull and made the Moai twist. Using the 14°angles, the Moai leans forward while the people on two front sides (front-left and front-right) pull, and was pulled back by the third group to make another “step”. It didn’t take many people as originally imagined to move the Moai forward.

A drawing of how Hunt and Lipo tied the replica to move it with three groups of ropes

References:
Wilkinson, Christian. “Easter Island.” A Guide to Easter Island, Chile, June 13, 2018. ​https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/world-heritage/easter-island/.

Brand, Stewart. “Terry Hunt, Carl Lipo: Easter Island Reconsider.” The Long Now ​Foundation, January 17, 2013. ​http://longnow.org/seminars/02013/jan/17/statues-walked-what-really-happened-e​aster-island/.

Walking with Giants: How the Easter Island Moai Walked | Nat Geo Live. YouTube. National Geographic, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5YR0uqPAI8

Further Reading:
Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo: The Statues That Walked | Nat Geo Live

Hunt, Terry L., and Carl P. Lipo. The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island. Berkeley, CA: Counter Point Press, 2012.

Probably the most famous archaeological discovery to mankind is the city ruins of Pompeii. In pop culture, Pompeii is known as the city that was washed away by Mount Vesuvius. But did you know that another city fell victim that August day in 79 AD? Its name is Herculaneum. 

Herculaneum was a Roman city on the port of the Gulf of Naples (Figure 1). In trying to reconstruct the past of these townspeople, archaeologists have found several luxurious places including bathhouses and theaters. This suggests that the town was one of the wealthiest areas in the Roman Empire, unlike its sister city Pompeii (Herculaneum 2016). It could even be a vacation spot! So, it was like the Hawaii of the Roman Empire! 

Figure 1: Herculaneum on the Map

However, that all changed on midnight, August 24th, 79 AD (Sheldon 2010). Mount Vesuvius wiped everything in its past. For the other Romans looking in, it was assumed that everyone escaped. That was it. From the records, no one talked about the city and the “story” of Herculaneum was sealed under sixty feet of volcanic material (Britannica 2019). It would reopen hundreds of years later. There isn’t a clear source as to how it was discovered. However, all sources have a common thread; it was accidentally founded by ordinary people in the 18th century.

Immediately, archaeologists from around the world wouldn’t only excavate Herculaneum but also explain the past of these ancient people. The site of Herculaneum is one of the best preserved sites in the world. The volcanic ash actually preserved the city underneath. Archaeologists got to recover jewelry and even food (Sheldon 2010)! The only food found were loaves of bread found within ovens that were accessible only to the higher class (Britannica 2019). In Pompeii, the volcanic material actually preserved the human body; we see the final positions they were in before they perished. In Herculaneum, it was initially believed that they escaped since no human bodies were found. Then in the 1980s, two hundred fifty human skeletons were found, like Figure 2, suggesting that the pyroclastic flow burned them, leaving only bone (Difference 2013).

Figure 2: Jewelry still worn on a woman’s hand found in a Herculaneum site

Today, Herculaneum is a tourist attraction (Figure 3). The discovery of Herculaneum debunks the myth that archaeology is a fully planned out process in that archaeologists know where the sites are beforehand. Herculaneum was discovered by accident; it’s through chance and improvisation in which the archaeological process for the city was founded upon. Through the various findings, we can tell the story of these Romans thousands of years later. The ovens, jewelry, boats, and bathhouses were the pieces to the puzzle on how we can confirm that Herculaneum was exclusive to the upper class. Only through archaeology could we do all of this and that’s the beauty of this field.

Figure 3: Herculaneum & Mount Vesuvius Today

Has the inner archaeologist in you want to explore this site? Here are two links to start your adventure:

https://www.meganstarr.com/visiting-herculaneum-from-naples/

http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/campania/herculaneum.html

Reference list

Text

Britannica, The Editors of EncyclopaediaHerculaneum. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. 2019.

Difference Between Pompeii and Herculaneum. DifferenceBetween.com. May 7. 2013.

Herculaneum Half-day Tour. VisitPompeiiVesuvius.com. 2016.

Sheldon, Natasha. The History of Herculaneum. Ancient History and Archaeology.com. 2010.

Images

File:Mt Vesuvius 79 AD eruption.svg. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.

Kleiner, Diane E.E2018 Habitats at Herculaneum and Early Roman Interior Decoration. We’re Never Far from Where We Were. February 19.

Parco Acheologico di Ercolano – 2019 All You Need to Know BEFORE You Go (with Photos). TripAdvisor.

When Edith Pretty hired archaeologist Basil Brown in 1937 to excavate the large mounds on her property, they discovered Europe’s richest ship burial to date. Sutton Hoo is home to a magnificent burial dating back to seventh-century AD, the grave of an Anglo-Saxon king who was buried with a ship full of grave goods (Knight 2019). This archaeological site in England provides a bountiful supply of information about Anglo-Saxon society.

In 1939, Brown excavated the largest mound at Sutton Hoo. He eventually uncovered the remains of a large ship (Walker 2017). At more than twenty-seven meters, the Anglo-Saxon rowing boat had been hauled up from the river and buried on land (Knight 2019). Unfortunately, not everything buried there 1,400 years ago still remained. The ship functioned as a water-repellent body, causing any water that seeped through the soil to build up. The soil turned acidic, dissolving any organic remains. (Sutherland 2018). Therefore, the wooden ribs of the ship rotted away over the centuries. Although the tangible remains of the ship had deteriorated, the ship left an intricate imprint (Knight 2019); the impression of the ship shaped a picture of what the ship looked like (Figure 1), despite the absence of physical remains.

Figure 1. The remains of the grand burial ship as they are excavated from the largest mound.

So, who was buried at Sutton Hoo? Like the boat, the body that was buried in the mound dissolved due to the soil’s acidity (Walker 2017). However, even when there are no physical remnants, evidence of human remains can still persist (Renfrew 2018). Tests done on the soil revealed traces of residual phosphate, a chemical that a body leaves behind when it decomposes (British Museum 2010). The big mystery surrounds the individual’s identity. The top theory is that the burial belongs to King Rædwald of East Anglia, who died in 624 AD (Walker 2017).

In the largest mound, Brown found an array of impressive relics. These 263 artifacts formed an image of beauty and sophistication. The most famous item found is the iconic metalwork helmet (Figure 2). The goods originated from diverse places; for example, coins from Merovingian France and a silver dish from Constantinople were found among the goods (Knight 2019). The diversity in places of origin of these items display the extensive trade connections that the Anglo-Saxons had with other European communities in the ancient world.

Figure 2. The astonishing metalwork helmet, made of iron and covered with panels depicting various scenes.

Before the burial’s discovery, a common belief about Anglo-Saxons depicted them as “crude folk… who lived crude lives and left little of value behind” (Knight 2019). The sophistication and intricacy of the artifacts found in the burial disprove these misconceptions about the Anglo-Saxons, showing they were more complex and worldly than people gave them credit for. The burial also displays the importance of grave goods and afterlife in this society’s beliefs. The artifacts emphasize the significance of burying respected or loved figures with valuable items that will travel with them as they move to the afterlife.

Additional Reading:

Additional information about Sutton Hoo from the National Trust:

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/sutton-hoo/features/the-royal-burial-mounds-at-sutton-hoo

About the connection between Sutton Hoo and the epic Beowulf:

http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs2003a/Terry&Jessica/sutton%20hoo.htm

References:

British Museum

2019 “British Museum – Who was buried at Sutton Hoo?”. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/sutton-hoo/features/the-royal-burial-mounds-at-sutton-hoo ed. Vol. 2019,

Knight, Sam

2019 “Revisiting Sutton Hoo, Britain’s Mythical Burial Ground.” https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/revisiting-sutton-hoo-britains-mythical-ship-burial ed. Vol. 2019,

Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn

2018 Archaeology Essentials. 4th Edition. Thames & Hudson, New York.

Sutherland, A.

2018 “Sutton Hoo Ship Bural and Famous Helmet That Could Belong To Raedwald, King Of All Kings Of Britain”. http://www.ancientpages.com/2018/01/09/sutton-hoo-ship-burial-famous-helmet-belong-raedwald-king-kings-britain/ ed. Vol. 2019,

Walker, Verónica

2017 “The Ghostly Treasure Ship of Sutton Hoo.” 
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2017/01-02/sutton-hoo-england-anglo-saxon-treasure-ship/ ed. Vol. 2019,

Images:

Figure 1: http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth212/sutton_hoo.html

Figure 2:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101216030235/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/w/who_was_buried_at_sutton_hoo.aspx

There is an ongoing debate as to whether or not the Minoans practiced human sacrifice, but as time goes on, evidence is making it increasingly clear that although it was not a common religious motif, human sacrifice in Minoan Crete did indeed occur. Three Bronze Age sites in Crete contain evidence of Minoan human sacrifice: at the “North House” in Knossos (LMIB), what is perhaps a religious building in Fournou Korifi (EMII), Anemosphilia, a temple near Mount Juktas (MMII), but for the sake of brevity and because it is by far the most published on, I will be focusing on the human sacrifice at Anemosphilia.

At Anemosphilia, a temple site located 20 miles from the palace of Knossos in a cave near Mount Ida, a group of human bones were found. Based on the bones, archaeologists have identified the remains of three humans at the site. The report that followed detailed a gruesome scene. Yannis Sakellarakis, the lead excavator at the cave at the time these bones were discovered, has been accused of skewing evidence for the sake of drama, but others say those who deny Sakellarakis’ evidence are simply Minoan-centric scholars who cannot stomach the idea of their beloved Minoans carrying out such a deed. Three bodies were found at the temple. A young man of about sixteen, an extremely tall (well over six feet) middle aged man, and a female who has been interpreted as a priestess. The boy was found in front of the tall man near a long piece of stone, which Sakellarakis has interpreted as an altar. Restraints were found near the both of them, along with a 16 inch knife. 

Perhaps most interestingly, an iron pendant was found near the priestess. At this time, iron would have been inexpressibly rare, (think a moon rock) and would have been needed to be found naturally. The presence of this object suggests that no matter what happened at Anemosphilia, the event carried significance. Because Minoans did not routinely practice human sacrifice, many questions have been raised about the purpose of sacrificing what looked to be a healthy adolescent male. Due to the timing of this sacrifice, archaeologists have theorized the sacrifice was a desperate attempt to stop environmental disturbances occurring on or near the island of Crete. Indeed the scene painted does suggest desperation, a priestess directing a huge man to seize an unwilling boy and drag him 20 miles to a mountain to sacrifice is dramatic, but does point to this event being very important.

the 16-inch knife

the site of Anemosphilia

one of the bodies found

Further Reading:

https://www.academia.edu/6949559/Human_Sacrifice_in_Anemospilia

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30102903.pdf

Archaeological discoveries in Bolivian savannas reveal how Pre-Columbian societies used aquaculture, or fish farming, as a method of adaptation. The Llanos de Moxos region, which lies on the outskirts of the Amazon rainforest, is characterized by expansive grasslands and months of torrential floods and subsequent drought.

The remains of canals, mounds, and other features suggest that societies permanently inhabited the austere landscape. Despite this overwhelming evidence, the Llanos de Moxos lied at the center of a decades-long dispute within archaeology. The prominent archaeologist Betty Meggers asserted that the region was incompatible with long-term settlements due to poor soil conditions and massive flooding (Mann 2000). Similarly, researchers associated the Smithsonian Institute took issue with the earthworks themselves, claiming that such features are the result of natural processes or migratory bands of settlers (Mann 2000). The environmental destruction of artifacts in the plains also contributed to the poor understanding of the region. Unfortunately, this dismissal of the archaeological record constituted the overwhelming consensus.

Intensive fieldwork only made possible by the easing of political tensions supports the existence of permanent, large-scale societies through the analysis of structures used for aquaculture. Inhabitants of the plains constructed lengthy walls with zigzags at various points. During periods of flooding, fish would swim through the channels and collect in traps, also referred to as fish weirs. (Figure 1). Archaeologists have also discovered extensive artificial ponds, most likely used for raising fish during the dry seasons (Mann 2000).

Figure 1. An artistic depiction of a fish weir in use

A recent excavation of the Loma Salvatierra mound provides greater insight on the extent of fish farming in the Llanos de Moxos region. The mound, which was occupied between 500 and 1400, is situated near a network of channels and ponds. A team of archaeologists discovered 17,338 fish remains in 62 stratigraphic units, most of which were remarkably well-preserved. While complete species identification of all the fish remains elusive, 63% were identified to the order level, representing a great diversity (Prestes-Carniero et al. 2019) (Figure 2). The three most common groups of fish raised at Loma Salvatierra include swamp eels, armored catfish, and lungfish. These species are well-suited to the dry conditions of the drought periods, suggesting that the mound was the center of a society that inhabited the plains year-round (Prestes-Carniero et al. 2019).

Figure 2. The osteological remains of fish excavated at Loma Salvatierra

The findings at the Loma Salvatierra site significantly contribute to our understanding of how societies in the Llanos de Moxos adapted to the alternating cycles of flooding and drought. Furthermore, the contention surrounding the region illustrates conflicts within the discipline of archaeology; discoveries are often made that contradict previous assumptions about people and places studied.

References

Mann, Charles C.
2000 Earthmovers of the Amazon. Electronic Document,
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cerickso/baures/Mann2.html, accessed
September 29, 2019.

Further Reading

A brief history on aquaculture

https://www.alimentarium.org/en/knowledge/history-aquaculture

An introduction to the geography and climate of Bolivia’s Moxos plains

https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0702

In general, the Neolithic Period is universally known to mark the rise of crop farming and animal domestication, activities not many modern day people can relate to. However, what most do not know is that we share a vital part of our lives with these prehistoric people: the consumption of milk.

A study conducted by the University of York has revealed new evidence that proposes milk consumption to have dated back over 6,000 years ago (Garner 2014). The University’s team obtained the teeth of ten Neolithic Britons from three different areas of southern England and analyzed their calcified dental plaque (Ewbank 2019). Through mass spectrometry and proteomic analysis, archaeologists found traces of beta lactoglobulin, a protein found in animal milk, in seven of these British farmers’ enamel, making this the earliest known evidence of humanity’s milk consumption (Solly 2019).

Figure 1: University of York scientists preparing a plaque sample (David 2019).

Figure 2: plaque on teeth being analyzed for milk proteins (Gramling 2019).

The importance of this find lies in its support of earlier claims and in its help in depicting the conditions of the Neolithic Period in the area now known as England. For one, since the ten Neolithic farmers who produced the dental plaque came from three different sites as opposed to just one, York’s archaeologists could safely conclude that dairy consumption was more widespread than originally thought without “[making] assumptions based on [their] own experience” (Renfrew and Bahn 2018). In addition, pottery priorly found by archaeologists already suggested that humans had consumed milk products, but direct evidence linking human ingestion of this milk was lacking. However, because teeth normally survive in good condition, scientists have been able to directly trace dairy consumption to humans with this new evidence, proving a cultural pattern that had long been unsupported. Furthermore, these farmers seem to precede the era in which humans began to be able to digest lactose; most people in southern England during the Neolithic Period were lactose intolerant (Solly 2019). However, because of the beta lactoglobulin found along the teeth, it can be inferred that these Neolithic farmers either drank their milk in small increments or somehow manipulated it for easier consumption (i.e. processing it into cheese, yogurt, etc). Thus, the dental evidence shows the conditions of part of these Neolithic farmers’ diets and how they adapted to their environment.

In essence, the unique preservational characteristics of teeth have lead archaeologists to consider the past’s relationship with milk in a new way. Therefore, the dental remains of these farmers gives us more insight about Neolithic life; in relation to curating archaeological records, teeth function as a window to the past.

Reference List:

Ewbank, Anne

2019 Found: The Earliest Direct Evidence of Milk Consumption. Electronic document, https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/when-did-humans-start-drinking-milk, accessed September 28, 2019. 

Garner, David

2014 Ancient Dental Plaque: A “Whey” Into Our Milk Drinking Past. Electronic document, https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2014/research/ancient-dental-plaque/, accessed September 28, 2019. 

Renfrew, Colin, and Bahn, Paul

2018 How Were Societies Organized?. In Archaeology Essentials(Theories/Methods/Practice), Thames & Hudson. Fourth ed. 

Solly, Meilan

2019 Prehistoric Farmers’ Teeth Show Humans Were Drinking Animal Milk 6,000 Years Ago. Electronic document, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/prehistoric-farmers-teeth-show-humans-were-drinking-animal-milk-6000-years-ago-180973101/, accessed September 28, 2019.

Images:

Figure 1:

Garner, David

2014 Ancient Dental Plaque: A “Whey” Into Our Milk Drinking Past. Electronic document, https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2014/research/ancient-dental-plaque/, accessed September 28, 2019. 

Figure 2:

Gramling, Carolyn
2019 Tooth Plaque Shows Drinking Milk Goes Back 3,000 Years in Mongolia. Electronic document, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tooth-plaque-shows-drinking-milk-goes-back-3000-years-mongolia, accessed September 29, 2019.

Further Reading:

To read more on material evidence of milk consumption:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/25/764243209/prehistoric-babies-drank-animal-milk-from-a-bottle

To read more on the science of beta lactoglobulin and how it is used in archaeology:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/beta-lactoglobulin

The Basque region on the border of Spain and France (Fig. 1) has long posed a puzzle to linguistic anthropologists: the local native language, Euskara, is a linguistic isolate unrelated to the languages of the Indo-European family surrounding it. Although now only spoken by 25% of the modern-day Basque population, toponymic evidence suggests that the ancient Basque population previously occupied a much larger territory, reaching from the Garonne River in the north to the Ebro River in the south (Behar et al. 2012). One dominant explanatory hypothesis holds that Euskara descended from a now otherwise extinct Paleolithic linguistic family no later than 6-7 thousand years ago and was relatively isolated by the Pyrenees Mountains, minimizing the cultural impact of farmers from the Near East whose westward migration sparked the European transition from mobile hunter-gatherer societies to segmentary and sedentary agricultural settlements in the Neolithic period, including, potentially, the spread of Indo-European languages (Cavalli-Sforza 1988).

Figure 1: Map of the Basque region on the border of France and Spain (Hoe 2017).

Archaeological data and genetic analyses have both complicated and broadened our understanding of this mystery. Comparisons of contemporary and ancient DNA have disproved any claims that the Basque people are a “living fossil” of the first Paleolithic European inhabitants. Genetic haplogroup J, often considered to be a marker of the Near Eastern Neolithic population expansion, was found to be present at an average frequency of 16% at two prehistoric Basque archaeological sites (Coffman 2005:44). This suggests a partial Near Eastern lineage in the ancient Basque population that mixed with local Mesolithic hunter-gatherer inhabitants between 7.3 and 6.8 thousand years ago, negating the concept of total Basque isolation (Günther and Valdiosera 2015).

Figure 2: The El Portalón cave site in Atapuerca, Spain (Frankel 2018).

However, recent studies on the modern European population have identified six related mitochondrial DNA H haplogroups found to be exclusive to Basque-speaking and immediately adjacent populations, while absent from other populations in Western Europe, suggesting that these haplogroups are autochthonous or indigenous to the region. These mtDNA variants are estimated to have separated from the pan-European gene pool 8,000 years ago, predating the putative arrival of Near Eastern farmers (Behar et al. 2012). This contradicts the evidence of haplogroup J and supports a theory of partial genetic continuity in the modern Basque population from earlier Paleolithic and/or Mesolithic populations. Furthermore, genomic sequencing of eight individuals from the El Portalón cave site in Atapuerca, Spain (Fig. 2), dated to between 5.5 and 3.5 thousand years ago and in association with archaeological remains of an early European farming culture (domestic animals and pottery vessels), demonstrated that these individuals, who carried mtDNA haplogroups associated with both early European farmers and hunter-gatherers, were most closely genetically linked to modern-day Basques than to any other modern-day population (Günther and Valdiosera 2015). This evidence bridges the multiple hypotheses and suggests that the Basque population descended in relative isolation from Neolithic migration, compared to other Iberian populations, from an admixed group of early farmers and hunter-gatherers who spoke a non-Indo-European language.

Additional information on the Basque language or the Atapuerca burial grounds.

References –

Behar, Doron M., Christine Harmant, and Jeremy Manry
2012 The Basque Paradigm: Genetic Evidence of a Maternal Continuity in the Franco-Cantabrian Region since Pre-Neolithic Times. PubMed Central. 90(3):486-493.

Cavalli-Sforza, Luca L.
1988 The basque population and ancient migrations in Europe. Munibe (Antropologia y Arqueologia). 6:129-137.

Günther, Torsten, and Cristina Valdiosera
2015 Ancient genomes link early farmers from Atapuerca in Spain to modern-day Basques. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112:11917-11922.

Levy-Coffman, Ellen.
2005 We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans. Journal of Genetic Genealogy. 1:40-50.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn
2018 Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, Practice with 303 Illustrations. Fourth ed. Thames & Hudson Ltd, London.

Images –

Frankel, Joseph.
2018 Pottery Shard Shows Early Humans in Europe Were More Connected Than Archaeologists Thought. Newsweek. Accessed from: https://www.newsweek.com/early-human-pottery-spain-783939

Hoe, Wen.
2017 From Open Data to Open Government: Citizen Participation in the Basque Country. Government Innovators Network, Harvard University. Accessed from: https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/blog/open-data-open-government-citizen-participation-basque-country-irekia

In terms of studies of written records, there are two different disciplines: Paleography and Epigraphy. The previous one focuses on the inscription: the evolution of inscriptions, the meanings, and etc.; while the latter one focuses on the handwriting specifically. As an example of study of Paleography, Chinese bronze inscription is a variety of writings that appears on the ritual bronzes (Zhong and Ding) date back from 14^thcentury B.C. to 3^rdcentury B.C.

Instead of a single style of inscriptions, bronze inscription can be roughly divides into four different inscriptions: Shang bronze inscription (14^thcentury B.C. to 11^thcentury B.C.), West Zhou bronze inscription (11^thcentury B.C. to 8^thcentury B.C.), East Zhou bronze inscription (8^thcentury B.C. to 3^rdcentury B.C.), and Qin Han bronze inscription (3^rdcentury B.C.); all categorized according to the chronological frequencies. (Figure 1)

Figure 1: “Sheep” Characters in Bronze Inscription

Although the production of bronze dated before Shang dynasty, the bronze inscription has not been seen on unearthed artifacts until the after the relocation of capital (Yin Xu) during later Shang dynasty. (Figure 2) By the early stage of bronze inscription, few characters can be seen on the bronzes, and most of the contents are related to ancestor. During Zhou dynasty, the use of bronze inscription became more and more common and reached the peak during the East Zhou. The contents are also no longer restricted to the ancestors’ names: emperor’s daily events, hunting ceremonies, victories of battle, music score, and etc. After the great unification of Qin dynasty, the emperor Ying Zheng (259 B.C. to 210 B.C.) unified the inscription; together with the increase use of ironwork, bronze inscription exits the stage of history.

Figure 2: Yin Xu Site

The general practice for bronze foundries to prepare for inscription was to cast the metal surface onto the clay mold. (Figure 3) As the inscriptions are mostly interior and positive (which means the characters sink into the metal surface instead of rising from it), the current hypothesis of the practice was the craftsman first negatively write the inscription on the wet clay and apply another wet clay onto it after the first version has hardened. Yet, although experimentally proven to be one possible solution, this practice has not yet gained any archaeological background from any sites. (Oliver, 2000)

Figure 3: Casting Practice in a Bronze Foundry

The bronze inscriptions have been discovered and systematically studies by archaeologists since Song Dynasty (10^thcentury to 13^thcentury). Its rich content on social events provides scholars with important details on Pre Qin Period history, specifically the history related to emperor and kings, and the glyphs have greatly influenced the evolution of Chinese. (Zhang, 2014)

Reference List

Oliver Moore

2000 Chinese. University of California Press, Oakland

Xiuxia Zhang

2014 Study of Bronze Inscriptions. Electronic document,

http://www.cssn.cn/sjxz/zxdt/tpxw/201404/t20140414_1065689.shtml, accessed Sep 29^th, 2019

Further Readings

Jeremy Norman

The Earliest Chinese Inscription in Bronze

http://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2676

Plcombs Chinese

Basics on Ancient Chinese Bronzes, Forms, Shapes, Uses; Ancient to Qing Dynasty

https://plcombs.blogspot.com/2012/09/ancient-chinese-bronzes-forms-shapes.html

Images

Figure 1

http://www.wenwuchina.com/a/13/235933.html

Figure 2

http://www.nipic.com/detail/huitu/20150317/184835827173.html

Figure 3

http://www.tuxi.com.cn/html/brkrw/brkrwjhhtcbtfklb.html

Accessing whether an animal was domesticated or wild from its bones has been a persistent objective for archaeologists. There are three markers signifying the difference between domesticated pigs and wild boars, used as approaches to distinguish bones (teeth and the lower jaw in particular) found on sites and thereby to study the degree of agriculturalization of varies ancient civilizations.

First and foremost, since the Neolithic period, food for humans has eventually become more sophisticated. Due to agriculturalization, food preparation became a much more meticulous process: from threshing, raking, winnowing to cleaning, food particles were then much easier to take in (Renfew and Bahn 2018:193). Moreover, the domestication of plants has also made food more refined: with a settled living pattern, farmers cultivated a variety of plants, boosting the production while also ultimately altering their structures to adapt more properly to the then desired diet (Renfew and Bahn 2018:195). Given pigs often ate household scraps (Weber and Price 2015), their diet has also experienced such a change. Now that mastication was less vital than before, pigs’ jawbones eventually experienced a shrink from the lack of frequent, forceful use. However, although the bone structure narrowed during the taming process, the inherited teeth structural traits still remained. A result of this phenomenon would be less space for development (Yuan 2019), and thus unevenly or irregularly grown teeth (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Irregularly aligned teeth of a domesticated pig (Yuan 2019).

Secondly, LEH (Linear Enamel Hypoplasia) is a condition concerning transverse markings on tooth enamel, which are formed during the developmental stages of a tooth crown (Figure 2), often due to malnutrition and mental stress (Magnell and Carter 2007). Since boars foraged their food in the wild, a balanced diet tended to be more approachable, promising a variety of sustenance. Therefore, LEH has a much lower rate of occurrence on wild boars’ enamel. On the other hand, domesticated and thus fed by humans, pigs had a less varied diet. Namely, household left-overs primarily with rich starch content, such as barley or oat, were given to pigs. Above that, being kept in a restricted space, domesticated pigs were stressed out by the captivity, leading to a higher chance of suffering from LEH. Thus, domesticated pigs tend to have a high LEH occurrence rate (Yuan 2019).

Figure 2: LEH markings on tooth enamel (Magnell and Carter 2007).

Last but not least, dental calculus, marked by a “mineralized plaque that accumulates on the surface of a tooth” (Weber and Price 2015), is also a sign that differentiates a domesticated pig from a wild boar. As mentioned above, due to the emergence of a high-starch diet, domesticated pigs were more prone to getting such a condition. Interestingly, aside from being a tool for identification, this condition, typically spotted with micro-remains of starch granules, is also used to determine the ancient diet for domesticated pigs (Weber and Price 2015). For further readings on this topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15301863

To read more about dental variations between domestic and wild Sus scrofa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328033/

Images:

Figure 1:

Yuan, Jing

2019     The Story of Pigs. Electronic document,

https://archsci.fudan.edu.cn/84/8c/c16569a165004/page.htm, accessed September 28, 2019

Figure 2:

Magnell and R. Carter

2007     THE CHRONOLOGY OF TOOTH DEVELOPMENT IN WILD BOAR – A GUIDE TO AGE DETERMINATION OF LINEAR ENAMEL HYPOPLASIA IN PREHISTORIC AND MEDIEVAL PIGS. Electronic document,

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/191f/6c636c2403c2b87d92074985673494508c5e.pdf, accessed September 28, 2019.

References:

Renfew and P. Bahn

2018     Archaeology Essentials (Theories/Methods/Practice). 4th ed. Thames & Hudson, London.

Magnell and R. Carter

2007     THE CHRONOLOGY OF TOOTH DEVELOPMENT IN WILD BOAR – A GUIDE TO AGE DETERMINATION OF LINEAR ENAMEL HYPOPLASIA IN PREHISTORIC AND MEDIEVAL PIGS. Electronic document,

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/191f/6c636c2403c2b87d92074985673494508c5e.pdf, accessed September 28, 2019.

Weber and Max D. Price

2015     What the pig ate: A microbotanical study of pig dental calculus from 10th–3rd millennium BC northern Mesopotamia. Electronic document,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15301863, accessed September 28, 2019

Yuan, Jing

2019     The Story of Pigs. Electronic document,

https://archsci.fudan.edu.cn/84/8c/c16569a165004/page.htm, accessed September 28, 2019