Punk Archaeology entails the creative use of artifacts and sites to break out of established modes of thought to promote new ways of thinking. Andrew Reinhard, the lead archaeologist in the Atari dig, describes Punk archeology as “the history of places affiliated with Punk music and culture. It also means that as archaeologists, we apply Punk’s do-it-yourself aesthetic to our science. Punk also engages the community and finds ways to work either within or around constraints such as money and time, using those restrictions to our advantage creatively.”There is continuous debate however, over the efficiency of this practice of archeology and why punk archaeology may or may not succeed in challenging established modes of thought.

When looking at the Atari excavations done in New Mexico by a team of punk archaeologists, it is hard not to wonder whether encountering and presenting the buried games as archaeological artifacts had the effect of providing some distance from the familiar and opening these objects up to new forms of critique. While archaeological investigation is in many ways about solving ancient “mysteries” archaeology is, first and foremost, a social science that uses various methodologies, careful accumulation and analysis of data, and scientific method. One of the first cons of the use of Punk archeology is the mass media that it attracts that creates a negative effect on the discoveries made. To clarify, when looking at the Atari dig done in New Mexico, some saw it as merely a publicity stunt and “claim to fame.” Instead of focusing on the actual science being done, such as the exposing of the stratigraphy of the landfill to determine the interplay between domestic trash and dumped Atari products, the project was largely dependent on the overarching story and schedule of the director…not the scientists. The scientists in this project can be viewed as props in “archeology theatre” and just parts of the documentary, not the main focus. This can also cause a lot of what is discovered to be twisted just to be made more appealing to the public. Punk archeology can often lead to forms of pseudoarcheology whereas things such as aliens walking the earth are studied. While some may argue that public attention is good for breaking established thought, putting archeology on a global stage can be detrimental and making it all seem like a big joke.

Punk archaeology can also be seen as a tool that encourages us to approach the familiar in unconventional ways.   It complements conventional archaeology which likewise provides a distance for critically understanding objects from the past, but in most cases these objects are already unfamiliar to the modern viewer. Punk archeology can make these objects understandable and relevant to public viewers. In the example of the Atari dig-up, it gave archeology profile and capital while also offering a look into corporate history. Some of what was dug up in this finding became museum artifacts and part of a life history visible to the public eye. Punk archaeology is not only a source of entertaining websites and goofy TV shows, it can be used in much more powerful way to influence modern ideas about the past and the present. It channels the public into learning a great deal about our more recent past and how modern thinking has informed and is informed by ancient history.

Alaina Wilson, the speaker in the Villard room, talked about the similarities of Native American stoned tools from New York and Alaska. She compared different stoned tools and analyzed their use for the different regions. What really surprised me was that she never mentioned if the tools were made by indirect or direct percussion methods. In my opinion, this information  would have been useful in determining what type of culture the knappers lived in. What also surprised me was the fact that the speaker only talked about technological similarities of the two societies.

In Pierre M. Desrosiers’s book, The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Experimentation, it’s evident that knapping techniques reveal information about preexisting cultures in Central Asia. Specifically, pressure knapping was present in Central Asia during the beginning of the Holocene. Desrosiers notes that depending on the culture, tools were either made using a short crutch or a long crutch. According to Desrosiers, Central Asian civilizations adopted the technique through cultural contact with the Far East and from migration of bearers of the technique from Siberia, Mongolia, Xinjiang. From this information, different methods of knapping can describe the influencing factors of cultures and can demonstrate how cultures evolve through technological advances. Thus I believe that knapping techniques can always describe technological and cultural traits of a society.

Picture of a man using a short crutch knapping tool (Pressure Knapping)

What I did learn from Alaina was that shock waves are sent through the stone during the process of knapping. Furthermore, Professor Lucy Johnson flint-knapping demonstration in class helped me visualize how flakes are produced. I noticed when the angle of contact was just slightly off, her stone would not form the way she wanted it to. Professor Johnson also enlightened the class that flake debris can help archaeologists reenact the knapping done and can indicate what type of tool was being made.

The analyzing of flake debris helped the archaeologist in the study compare the types of tools that were produced. After watching Professor Johnson knap and listening to Alaina, I was curious about the concept of flake debris sizes created from flint-knapping. I found out that there’s a relationship between the weight of crafted tools and the flake debris generated from knapping. According to archaeologist Michael Shott, flake debris can help determine original tool weight and can show the depletion of the original tool.

In all, Alaina Wilson’s hypothesis was proven by the discovery of similar weight distribution of the flakes from both sites, the fact that the stones went through feather termination, and the artifacts from both of the sites showed similarities in the late stages of the knapping process.

Photo Link:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-2003-3_18/fulltext.html

References:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qjm8IbYgnmAC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=what+indirect+percussion+reveals+about+a+culture&source=bl&ots=YT_cF5tz0w&sig=5iBkB8Z3tqiXdt9lQDnhhKKFxqo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d8M0VLzQHdGNsQSD64CoDg&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=what%20indirect%20percussion%20reveals%20about%20a%20culture&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20177305?seq=16

Further Reading:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bulgq1AeO4MC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=short+shoulder+crutch+artifacts+archaeology&source=bl&ots=mc2USg5Pqj&sig=E-XYxLXuTWFg-YCbzz3Rq-dIsCg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bcw0VMf9FMO-ggSCooC4Dg&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=percussion&f=false

Short Crutch Demonstration (Pressure Knapping):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZMf4myJOVI (Flake removed at 3:00)

Experimental archaeology is a field of study that attempts to generate and test archaeological hypotheses, usually by replicating or approximating the feasibility of ancient cultures performing various tasks or feats. When focusing on tool making, archaeologists will often recreate these tools to the best of their ability in the hope of learning the answers to questions such as why or how these tools were used. The imitation of flint knapping can lead archaeologists to answers about the difference in tool making and usage of tools from different time periods and/or locations.

Figure 1. The result of flint knapping various types of stones such as chert and obsidian

This past summer Professor Lucy Johnson and three Vassar students produced a comparative analysis of tool making debris from Native American sites in New York to a site located on Unga Island in Alaska. Specifically, their research was angled toward the determination of whether or not different cultures produce different tool-making debris or if the debris is constant despite the location of the tool making. It was determined that in the New York State sites, the Native American knappers were approaching how they were going to knap in similar matters based on the consistent finds among all sites. Additionally, the weight distribution, striking platform, and limited dorsal cortex of the debris were coherent between both the New York and Alaska site. Based on this evidence, it can be determined that sites that reflect similar stages in the knapping process show similar trends in flake attributes. The distinguishing factor between these two sites would be the use of brittle volcanic stones in Alaska and chert in New York State. While the process remains the same despite the material utilized, the volcanic stones are harder to control and probably led to a more time-consuming knapping process.

Peter Jones and his experimental butchery with modern stone tools exhibits another usage of experimental archaeology. Within his study, Jones looks at the efficiency of various stone tools such as large hand axes, cleavers, retouched flakes, etc. His overall objective was to determine which of these tools worked better in the cleaving and skinning of numerous animals of different sizes (goats, zebras, etc.) and to rationalize what this may have meant for hunters and knappers in the early Paleolithic and Pleistocene. His overall conclusion inferred that large, generally bifacially flaked tools are more efficient than small plain flakes for most butchery tasks. Large tools would be advantageous due to their weight and long cutting edges. However, at predominant Paleolithic Sites there has been an abundance of small flakes and flake tools discovered. In Jones’ opinion, these are the result of tool re-sharpening and/or reworking.

Figure 2. Outline of tool types tested on various animal csrcasses

In my opinion, experimental archaeology is one of the few methods that can effectively aid in the understanding of previous stone tool assemblage and usage…most of the time. I remain cautious due to the fact that although our methods may be succinct, we can never be sure because we didn’t coexist with these people. History and archaeology are not about finding the “right answer.” They exist to build a logical story of events that may or may not be true due to what we know.

References:

Jones, P. (n.d.). Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology, 153-165. Retrieved October 4, 2

Nehawka Primitive Skills. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://nehawkaprimitiveskills.blogspot.com/2008/09/flintknapping-101-material.html

Ancient Craft – Experimental Archaeology. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2014, from http://www.ancientcraft.co.uk/experi_arch/experimental_archaeology.html

Future Reading:

Newcomer, M., & Sieveking, G. (1980). Experimental Flake Scatter-Patterns: A New Interpretative Technique. Journal of Field Archaeology, 345-352. Retrieved October 4, 2014.

Marzke, M., & Shackley, M. (n.d.). Hominid Hand Use In The Pliocene And Pleistocene: Evidence From Experimental Archaeology And Comparative Morphology. Journal of Human Evolution, 439-460. Retrieved October 4, 2014.

Shored Up identifies the increasing crises of global climate change and sea level rise, and the equal threat of our society’s inability to recognize and react appropriately to such crises. People are attracted to water, so coastlines have become a prime source for development. Time and time again, as disasters strike coasts and nearly wash them clean, people run back to rebuild their homes. An example the documentary mentions is Long Beach Island, New Jersey. Long Island is extremely vulnerable to storms of any degree and each year New Jersey loses a half-foot of shoreline due to erosion alone. In 1962, the island received its first major catastrophe when the “100 year storm” hit. Once it passed over, people came back in, started constructing new homes, and implemented beach replenishment and nourishment programs. These programs are extremely expensive, short term attempts to elongate the coast, shedding light on the human denial of the power of nature and of climate change.

So, how does this relate to archaeology? Shored Up didn’t explicitly reveal any connections between climate change and archaeology, although it hinted at one. Footage took us into the personal accounts of families whose homes were destroyed and we watched them sift through rubble to find any significant remains. This in itself is a subtle form of archaeology, in which the victims are forced to sort through the matrix of debris to find any remaining valuables. As a response to such natural disasters, the field of disaster archaeology has recently emerged, which incorporates archaeological practices into recording and recovering evidence, including human remains, victim identification, disaster scene analysis, etc., from mass fatality disasters.

The major connection between climate and archaeology is that fluctuations in climate can tell archaeologists many things about the environment and culture of a location. The climate and environment govern human life, so when changes in climate occur, changes in culture occur. A perfect example that dictates this relationship is the Ice Age. During the Ice Age, glacial ace covered the majority of water and land, allowing only mostly megafauna and microorganisms to exist. When humans moved into North America and came into contact with such megafauna, they had to create large weapons to take down these monstrous animals for survival. Around 10,000 years ago, the ice began to melt, causing the megafauna to go extinct, which brought the shift to archaic culture. Archaic culture shifted towards smaller game and agriculture, and technology therefore changed to smaller tools to accommodate this shift. This example shows how culture is dependent on climate.

Archaeology can reveal how humans have either adapted to or denied the nature and climate of their environment. Like the humans of the Ice Age, we need to adapt to the circumstances of today. Shored Up encourages us to accept, not deny, climate change and the powerful force of nature, so that we can start coming up with and implementing long term, sustainable solutions to climate change and coastal disasters.

Additional Links:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-17428

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782

Information Sources Used:

http://cis.uchicago.edu/outreach/summerinstitute/2013/documents/sti2013_paulette_gould_disasterarchaeology.pdf

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2010. 202-03. Print. Pg 173.

Photo Links:

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/amid_the_rubble_precious_photo.html

http://environmental.lilithezine.com/Rising-Sea-Levels.html

A view of Long Beach Island from the East.

Shored Up is a documentary that delves into the impact that climate change is having on sea levels and therefore beachfront property that is close to the shoreline.  Included in the documentary are interviews with scientists, activists, lobbyists, and others with opinions on beach erosion and its effect on homes.  The focus of the documentary is on Long Beach Island, an island off the coast of New Jersey that is 18 miles long and about 400 meters (around a quarter of a mile) wide.

One of the release posters for the Shored Up film. The image of waves flooding a construction plow and coastal houses perfectly conveys the film’s anti coastal development message.

On the island in question, beaches are being eroded by rising sea levels and by general ocean activity (the movement of waves and such).  Owners of expensive waterfront property are having the beaches in front of their property “replenished”, which means essentially that extra sand is being dumped in front of their houses to replace that lost to erosion.  This is all being done at the expense of taxpayers through the federal, state, and local governments (although most of the funds are being raised federally).  This “beach replenishment” has sparked a wide-ranging debate concerning whether it is a good idea or not.  Some feel that it is, some feel that federal funds are being squandered, and some feel that “beach replenishment” is not an effective long-term solution due to the fact that rising sea levels projected by scientists over the next century (over a meter) will flood over the houses that are being temporarily protected anyways.

I agreed with the overall argument of the movie that rising sea levels will eventually destroy any economic or residential development close to the shoreline and that we should therefore think more carefully about where we build.  However, I noticed that mentions of “global warming” were scarce and that talk of greenhouse gases generated by human activity was lacking altogether, although this would be a logical explanation to give for the rising sea levels.  I believe that this was done to avoid alienating those who deny the existence of “global warming” and still appeal to them.  Mention of recent temperature increase was given, but this was not attributed to “global warming”.  I personally believe that deniers of global warming would much more easily object to “global warming” itself than an abject statement of temperature change, meaning that the film would still be able to appeal to those non-believers.  I don’t believe in the use of these tactics and I think that the full scientific argument should have been presented, not parts of it.  After all, making one’s argument more “presentable” is not going to have a real impact on our nation’s anti-scientific political climate, which is at the heart of the problem.

The relation between the climate change described in the documentary to archaeology was implicit yet relatively simple.  As long as this erosion of the beaches due to sea level rise continues, archaeological sites that formerly existed under those beaches will be destroyed.  In addition, the “beach replenishment” itself may be destroying archaeological remains, as heavy plows which could damage those records are being used to spread the new sand.  In other words, the only way to save archaeological sites on the coast is to find a long-term solution to the erosion problem that would most likely involve combating rising sea levels and global warming.

Also, archaeological methods have been used to collect much of the data that proves climate change is occurring, as described in Colin Renfrew’s Archaeology Essentials.  Many ice cores have been extracted from ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.  These cores tell us that whenever the greenhouse gas level rises (as measured within the cores themselves), global temperatures increase.  And right now greenhouse gas levels measured in our atmosphere are higher than they have been for the last half a million years.  So, in this way, archaeology can be used to provide evidence that climate change will take place in the near future.

Sources:

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1996. Print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shored_Up#mediaviewer/File:Shored_Up_poster.jpg

http://kosmixmedia.com/static/f9f55cf0fbcb1cf622e91e35c8b76b1a.jpg

Additional information:

http://shoredupmovie.com

Isotopic Analysis in Environmental Archaeology

The use of isotope analysis in environmental archaeology has expanded. By measuring the ratio of different isotopes found in human and animal remains, archaeologists may be able to tell a human or animal’s geological origin, including climate and seasonal movements, as well as their diet.

Most forms of isotopic analysis consist of analysis on bones and teeth and shells. An individual’s tooth is said to be able to provide a “geological snapshot from the early years of life, when teeth were developing.” An archaeologist could gain evidence of a person’s environment when they were younger as the isotopes in that environment during the period of time when the tooth was forming influences the isotopes found in that tooth. Another less used part of the body that can be analyzed is hair. It is thought to be not as susceptible to change due to age as bone and teeth may be and absorbs many isotopes from the surrounding environment.

Examples of various human diets

The ecosystem a person lives in transfers isotopes to the people and animals feeding there. They are transferred when people eat animals and/or plants and by reading the different levels of different isotopes a pretty accurate construction of what their diet consisted of can be formed. For example vegans and vegetarians differ from those who are neither vegan nor vegetarian in the composition and levels of isotopes in their bodies. Isotope analysis sometimes shows cultural differences through dietary habits. Stable carbon and nitrogen values found in the bones from an Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery site provided results on how class distinctions altered dietary habits between the “wealthy,” “intermediate wealthy” and “poor.” It also showed how diets were not different between the sexes at the time. Another study in Europe, through isotopic research, was able to propose the idea that the Late European Mesolithic era diet consisted of mostly marine fish with small contributions from shellfish or marine mammals.

Dr. Thorton using strontium isotope analysis to investigate faunal resource exchange among the ancient Maya

Climate leaves is mark on human beings and animals alike with its own isotopic signature. A carbon ration may be used to show where an individual obtains his or her food, displaying if the food was from an arid environment or not. The isotope strontium can be used to discover an individual’s geologic origins. The prevalence of the isotope found in remains can indicate the area a person lived in according to the area’s own isotopic record. Oxygen isotopes provide a good climactic indicator as well as evidence to animal movements. If an individual lived at higher altitudes the air would have been thinner than someone living at or below sea level and they would have, consequentially, had a different oxygen isotope ratio.

Isotopic Analysis is growing in its significance and use in archaeology. It can be used to do more than just date remains or artifacts. It can create a picture of the object or artifact’s environment.

Sources:

http://envarch.net/environmental-archaeology/no-longer-do-archaeologists-have-to-rely-solely-on-seeds-bones-and-shells-isotope-analysis-is-the-future-of-environmental-archaeology/

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/354/1379/65.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544030190785X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440398903879

Additional Resources:

Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, Second Edition

american archaeology: a quarterly publication of The Archaeological Conservancy

This week in class we talked about how early humans used tools to hunt, butcher meat,and perform other tasks, and how archaeologists have been unearthing these tools as artifacts.  I had previously read about the use of glue in early stone tools and was intrigued by it, so since we did not cover this thoroughly in class, I decided to do more research.

A reconstruction of a Neanderthal holding a spear bound using manufactured glue.

As it turns out, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) used glue in their tools and were one of the first species to do so.  The glue used by Neanderthals has been discovered in two different types.  The first was made by retrieving and heating asphalt deposits, yielding a sticky substance that could be used to bind a spear tip made out of stone to a wooden shaft.  This glue was used along with animal sinew or some other form of “string” used to tie the wood to the spear tip.  A second type of glue was manufactured using an even more complex process.  This glue was made by extracting pitch from birch bark.  Through experimental methods, researchers have discovered that manufacture of this pitch would entail heating the bark to a temperature of higher than 650 degrees fahrenheit in an oxygen-free environment.  The pitch has been discovered at archaeological sites in Königsaue, Germany; Inden-Altdorf, Germany; and Campitello, Italy.  The substance was found near Neanderthal-style tools, implicating Neanderthals in the manufacture of this complex material.  The sites date back from 40,000 to 200,000 years.

A juxtaposition of the skulls of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (left) and Homo Neanderthalensis (right).

The implications of these finds are astonishing.  Both of the types of “glue” yielded by Neanderthal manufacture qualify as “synthetic” materials, as heat was used to extract a substance that could not be harvested directly from the earth from another that did occur in nature.  Furthermore, the second process implicates that Neanderthals had some knowledge of chemical principles, as they had to not only create an environment with a very high temperature but one containing no oxygen, which would require a conscious effort to devise a method of excluding oxygen from said environment.  This use of critical thinking skills is one that we would typically attribute to our species alone – yet these finds suggest that Neanderthals were doing it before modern humans even existed, over 200,000 years ago.  This evidence is key in the debate on whether Neanderthals should be classified as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (our species).  Interbreeding is known to have occurred between the two species, and usually it is only possible for members of the same species to mate.  However, there are still several key differences between the two.  Perhaps this discovery that Neanderthals used similar synthetic processes to those present in the modern human archaeological record proves that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are not so different from them after all.

Sources:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defy-stereotypes.html

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/skulls/sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.gif

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-reanalysis-pushes/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22133/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

Additional Reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1766683.stm

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9590.full

Although technically considered to be “number two,” scientists have made a discovery using 50,000 year old fecal matter considered to be number one in its field. The discovery, made in a cave site at El Salt in Alicante, Spain, proves that the Neanderthals which inhabited that region did not eat only meats but they ate their veggies as well.

The cave site of El Salt during excavation.

The Neanderthals, which are Homo Sapiens (a.k.a. modern humans) close yet extinct relatives, were our ancestors long thought to be dim-witted and solely meat-eaters. Yet, these beliefs were proven wrong when geoarchaeologist Ainara Sistiaga led a study into the caves in southern Spain and subsequently found the fossilized feces, known also as “coprolites.”

Surprisingly enough, when Sistiaga first led the investigation into the caves at El Salt, what researchers were originally looking for was chemical traces regarding what it was that Neanderthals used to cook with. “I thought they were cooking in there, so I was looking for lipids from cooking,” says Sistiaga to USA Today. As the research at the site continued, however, the poop samples were found unexpectedly on the top layer of a hearth which dates back to around 50,000 years ago. “I was quite surprised we found these samples in a place where they would eat,” says Sistiaga. “We think they were deposited after they stopped using the fire pit.”

Before these samples were recovered, many believed that the Neanderthals who lived that long ago only ate the meat of various animals which they had hunted down. Many of the previous studies relating to Neanderthal diet relied upon fossilized stomach content and the remains on food between their teeth. However, out of the samples of fecal matter recovered, two have contained cholesterol-related compounds which are consistent with that of various plants-based foods. What does this mean exactly? It means that our early human ancestors were actually well-balanced when it came to their diets.

A close-up of what scientists say is a miniature sample of Neanderthal poop. Fossilized or petrified excrement are known as “coprolites.”

In addition to revealing the presence of plant foods in Neanderthal diet, analysis of the preserved poop showed evidence of parasites, including those such as hookworms and pinworms. The numbers in which these parasites were present correspond with what scientists say would make modern humans very sick.

Overall, this new evidence has begun to shed some light on the diets of many Neanderthals long ago. As Paleontologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis told National Geographic, this study of petrified excrement is the first to provide direct chemical evidence that our Neanderthal ancestors ate their vegetables along with their meat. However, it is important to remember that evidence provided by fecal residues represents only short-term information on the diets of those who left them, but as time goes on, more discoveries will undoubtedly lead to more definitive proof regarding how and what our distant relatives ate.

More Reading On This Topic Can Be Found At:

http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-1.604951

http://www.livescience.com/46529-poop-fossils-reveal-neanderthals-ate-plants.html

Works Cited

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. “Fecal Material.” Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2010. 202-03. Print.

Sullivan, Gail. “World’s Oldest Poop Suggests Neanderthals Weren’t Meatheads.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 June 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

Vergano, Dan. “What Discovery of Oldest Human Poop Reveals About Neanderthals’ Diet.” N.p., 25 June 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2014. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140625-neanderthal-poop-diet-ancient-science-archaeology/

Image 1: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140625-neanderthal-poop-diet-ancient-science-archaeology/

Image 2: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/06/25/human-poop-neanderthals/11105791/

Mysterious bowls covered with holes were found in central Poland by archaeologist Peter Bogucki back in the 1970s. Unsure of what their purpose was, Bogucki put them away in storage. In chapter six of  Archaeology Essentials, one of the question we look at is: “What did they eat?”. There are multiple different ways to figure out what types of foods were eaten by a group of people, but Mélanie Roffet-Salque, a geochemist, decided to analyze the food residues hiding inside the bowls. By doing this she found milk fat, and the purpose of the bowls were uncovered. These bowls were used to separate the fatty part from the drinkable part of milk. This new information gives us a look inside the people who owned these peculiar bowls.

Originally, only babies and young children could tolerate lactose. As they got older their bodies would not produce lactose enzymes, causing them to become lactose intolerant. Around 11,000 years ago, Prehistoric people would decrease the levels of lactose by making dairy products like cheese and yogurt. These products are fermented. By going through the necessary processes of fermentation the lactose levels would decrease allowing them to be consumed. However, during the shift from hunter-gathers to farmers, there was another changed that occurred. A genetic mutation spread through Europe, that allowed adults to continue producing lactose enzymes. Instead of milk being a toxin, it was integrated into their diet. This shift changed what people drank and what they depended on.

Ancient Egyptian scene, depicting the use of cattle and the milk produced. Africa was also affected by this genetic mutation.

When this genetic mutation spread through Europe, farming already played a huge role in people’s lives. They relied on their crops for food. However, if crops were ruined by a storm, wild animals, or a drought, the farmers would lose those resources and would struggle to survive until next season. With the introduction of dairy products,  a new balance came about. The products allowed the farmers to have a safety net. If their crops spoiled, or if there was not enough, farmers could turn to cattle for dairy products.

Chart expressing the evolution of dairy.

The gene did more than allow adults to consume diary products. It also affected the fertility rates of those who had the genetic modification. Those that had the genetic mutation “would have produced up to 19% more fertile offspring than those who lacked it” (Curry).  Diary was not such another safe source of nutrition but an actually aid to insure the continuation of a culture. Being able to utilize chemical analysis to analyze cultural artifacts allowed us to see the introduction of dairy products into the lives of Europeans, and how it changed what they relied on and what they needed to utilize those resources.

Sources:

Curry, Andrew. “Archaeology: The Milk Revolution.” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 31 July 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471>.

Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn (2010) Archaeology Essentials. 2nd edition. Thames & Hudson, New York.

Pictures:

http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

More Readings:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070226/full/news070226-4.html

http://www.nature.com/news/pottery-shards-put-a-date-on-africa-s-dairying-1.10863

Coprolites are fossilized feces that can be analytically examined to understand archaeological events. Fourteen coprolites were found by archaeologists at the lowest levels of the Paisley 5-mile point caves in south-central Oregon. The coprolites found it this site were morphologically human based on the size, shape, consistency, and color. Upon further analysis using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR), all fourteen coprolites tested positive for human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). The next step for the archaeologists was to date the age of these coprolites.

Panorama of the Paisley 5 mile point caves in south-central Oregon where the coprolites were found.

The coprolites were dated using an accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) system. This radiocarbon dating system found that the three oldest produced an age of 12,300 ¹⁴C years B.P. To ensure the validity of these coprolites dates, the archaeologists sent the five coprolites from the deepest layers to be direct dated by AMS at two independent laboratories; Beta Analytic in Florida, USA and Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at the University of Oxford, UK. These two labs used two different methodologies for analyzing the coprolites and could be cross examined for accuracy. From the five coprolites sent to both labs, four produced consistent dates ranging approximately 1300 to 12,300 ¹⁴C years B.P. and three pre-dated 11,000 ¹⁴C years B.P. This data confirms that humans were present in North America before the Clovis people.

A breakdown of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry system that was used to detect and analyze the long-lived radionuclides in the coprolites.

The Clovis people are a group of prehistoric Native Americans commonly thought to be the first human inhabitants of North America. They are named after the town where their artifacts were found in Clovis, New Mexico and they inhabited the area around 11,000 ¹⁴C years B.P. The latest coprolite studies from Oregon question the age of North American inhabitants. Many other pre-Clovis occupation sites have been recorded around North America but they remain controversial because of the lack of human artifacts to accurately date the sites. The coprolites found at the Paisley 5 mile point caves are so crucial because they undisputedly confirm pre-Clovis humans. The DNA in the coprolites not only dated the age of the humans who produced them, but they also gave us an insight to their diet.

Many of the coprolites contained canid 16S mitochondrial DNA that is similar to the red fox, coyote, domestic dog, or wolf. Among the coprolites the archaeologists also found a diverse amount of canid bones. The two most likely explanations for these findings are that the earliest humans in North America included canids in their diet or that canids inhabited the caves during nonhuman occupation and directly urinated on the human feces. Both theories give us insight to the past and the importance of coprolite analysis in resolving the historical record.

Additional Links

What AMS is and how it is works:

https://www.physics.purdue.edu/ams/introduction/ams.html

Analysis of Coprolites found in the Hidden Caves of western Nevada:

http://www.academia.edu/418795/Coprolites_From_Hidden_Cave_Revisited_Evidence_for_Site_Occupation_History_Diet_and_Sex_of_Occupants

Sources

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5877/786.abstract?sid=a3a9f1cd-0fc8-41b9-a01a-adc8d4c26fe7

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/science/04fossil.html?_r=0

http://www.crystalinks.com/clovis.html

Picture links

http://donsmaps.com/coproliteevidence.html

http://web2.ges.gla.ac.uk/~dfabel/CN_images/ANTARES_AMS.jpg