Recent class discussions have consisted of explaining the importance and impact of lithics on archeological discoveries. The term lithic is derived from ancient Greek and means rock. This is why lithic technology can be defined as certain techniques that are used to produce various categories of stone tools. The first stone tools from two and a half million years before the present can be characterized as simplistic and non-selective. However, as time progressed significant additions were made to lithics further enhancing hominins’ ability to manipulate these stone tools to their benefit. Early lithics are smaller sections of stone that were produced by striking two stones together. This type of lithic is uniface, meaning that only one side of the stone had been flaked. Whereas the lithics that are more recent are biface tools meaning that two sides have been flaked. The resulting tool has a distinct purpose for each side. In addition, lithics began to be produced with stones of higher quality and structure leading to stronger tools. Furthermore, lithics began to become more symmetrical which shows that hominins underwent adaptations progressively. As time continued to progress lithic technology became even more advanced resulting in different facets of stone stools. Stone tools morphed from uncomplicated scrapers to intricate arrowheads. As hominins progressed, the tools that they used became more complex to keep up with their more elaborate lifestyle. Determining factors of more recent lithics are the bulb point near the bottom of the stone. The bulb point was formed as a result of a stone being struck against another hard surface. These identifiers are crucial in determining the period in which a certain lithic was used. Lastly, these devices molded human advancement and contributed to the development of hominins.

Lithics are being discovered all throughout the world. Recently expert archaeologists: Panagiotis Karkanas, Eleni Panagopoulou, and Katerina Harvati found lithics that are from a “quarter of a million years before present.”(Paphitis 2023) The artifacts were unearthed from a site in the infamous “Megalopolis region of modern Greece.”(Paphitis 2023) These scientists reported that “rough stone tools”(Paphitis 2023) were observed at the site. Since these artifacts were simple stone tools that had sharp flakes it uncovers that they are from the “Lower Paleolithic stone tool industry.”(Paphitis 2023) The tools’ distinct shape and clear edges prove that the tools’ main purpose was for slaughtering and preparation of meals. Also, these tools aided the cultivation process of other plant and animal matter for hominin consumption.

References:

Paphitis, Nicholas. “Newly discovered stone tools drag dawn of Greek archaeology back by a
quarter-million years.” ABC News. Last modified June 1, 2023. Accessed October 1, 2023.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/newly-discovered-stone-tools-drag-dawn-greek-archaeology-99767958.

Shea, John J. “Lithics Basics.” Cambridge University Press & Assessment. Last modified March 5,
2013. Accessed October 1, 2023. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/
stone-tools-in-the-paleolithic-and-neolithic-near-east/lithics-basics/
487AB7381E1E3B42C4980448AF364C40.

“Newly discovered stone tools drag dawn of Greek archaeology back by a quarter-million years.”
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Last modified June 2, 2023. Accessed October 1,2023. https://ascsa.edu.gr/news/newsDetails/newly-discovered-stone-tools.

Further Readings:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356577/

https://upcolorado.com/university-press-of-colorado/item/1950-stone-tools-and-the-evolution-of-human-cognition

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/673264

The constant discovery of past technology undoubtedly changes our perception of how different advancements were made. Although it is true that today’s doctors have developed new techniques and methods, the doctors of the past, specifically Roman doctors, used many of the same medical tools that are currently used. 

In 2022, archaeologists discovered the 2,000-year-old remains of a Roman doctor near Jászberény, Hungary, and alongside the body was a collection of medical instruments including: “a forceps, for pulling teeth; a curet, for mixing, measuring and applying medicaments, and three copper-alloy scalpels fitted with detachable steel blades and inlaid with silver in a Roman style” (Lidz, 2023). People created products with metal alloys because they were discovered to be harder and tougher. Additionally, copper has antimicrobial properties, and in a time where hygiene was not at the same standards as it currently is, it was important to limit the chance of infection as much as possible. However, the tools were probably made without this intention. Egyptians first mentioned the use of antimicrobial effects, and they used it to sanitize drinking water and to treat chest wounds. 

The detail and material of these instruments indicated that the doctor was high-ranking and traveled to this area to perform his duties. Jászberény was part of a region outside of the Roman Empire and had a lot of conflicts. It was odd that a well-equipped medical professional would be there unless they came to the aid of a prestigious figure. Doctors were very rare according to Dr. Samu, research fellow at ELTE and member of the team on the dig, as, “Studying medicine was only possible, at the time, in a large urban center of the empire” (Lidz, 2023). Limiting the practice to a certain part of the empire, made medical work a very important occupation. Although this was not the first medical kit to be discovered, it was a rare find. Also, the limited amount of education offered, created many inexperienced medical professionals. Building a reputation in the empire would be important, indicating why this body that was discovered had such well-made instruments. Firsthand medical experience could also be found on the battlefield adding another possibility as to why the body could be found in this region.

The grave was purposefully chosen, and the doctor was most likely buried with his instruments as a sign of respect. However, as with all discoveries, it is not the only possibility and others must be considered.

Additional Information

How medical instruments were used – http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/romansurgical/

More uses of Roman medicine – https://www.history.com/news/ancient-roman-medicine-galen

References

Arendsen, Linda P, Ranee Thakar, and Abdul H Sultan. 2019. “The Use of Copper as an Antimicrobial Agent in Health Care, Including Obstetrics and Gynecology.” Clinical Microbiology Reviews. U.S. National Library of Medicine. August 14, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6730497/.

Lidz, Franz. 2023. “Scalpel, Forceps, Bone Drill: Modern Medicine in Ancient Rome.” The New York Times. The New York Times. June 13, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/science/archaeology-ancient-rome-medicine.html. 

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. 2018. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Fourth edition. Thames & Hudson.

Recent discoveries of stone flakes from Macaque monkeys are challenging previously made assumptions of human cognitive evolution and abilities (Greenfieldboyce 2023). The earliest stone tools were quite simple – using direct percussion, one would use a hammer stone to break off flakes of another stone, called the core, to create a tool. In the first stages of this development, tool-making often only meant breaking a stone in half to create a sharp edge, but this developed into more refined tools, created by carefully flaking off stone, eventually on both sides of the tool (Renfrew 2018, 212).

An important part of the daily life of the Macaque monkeys in Thailand is the consumption of oil palm nuts. To eat the nuts, Macaques place the nut on a flat stone and then hit it with another stone, cracking it open. When the monkeys miss the nut, which can happen often, they may unintentionally break the flat stone underneath the nut, creating stone flakes that are very similar to early stone tools (Zorich 2023).

Despite the fact that these flakes are largely understood to be unintentional and not used, there are a few possible implications of this discovery. The first is that early humans could have been inspired by the flakes they saw macaques making, leading them to create the first intentional stone flakes. Recent research has suggested that the date of development for stone tools may be over 3 million years ago rather than the previously imagined 2.6 million years ago. The discovery of these artifacts provides concrete evidence for an earlier date of the development of stone tools (Proffitt 2023).

The discovery of the Macaque stone flakes is also significant as it calls into the question the validity of flakes previously identified as anthropogenic. The stone flakes that the Macaques produce are almost indistinguishable from those intentionally created by humans. According to a study by Tomos Proffitt, around 20-30% of the earliest flakes could be attributed to the Macaques (2023). However, it is still possible to distinguish the two. Because the Macaque flakes were produced unintentionally and not used as tools, they lack the distinctive use-wear patterns that early human stone tools. In addition, if an archeologist has access to the core stone that the tools were flaked off of, they can analyze percussive patterns to determine if the entity creating the flakes had knowledge of fracture patterns and was using those patterns intentionally (Greenfieldboyce 2023). 

Because both types of flakes are so similar, this discovery emphasizes the importance of an accurate behavioral interpretation of artifacts. Upon first glance, Macaque flakes can easily be confused with human’s intentional flakes. Only with careful observation and analysis can the two be identified as separate entities. However, the striking similarities between the two types of flakes provides important evidence for an earlier development date of stone tools used by humans, potentially altering our understanding of the evolution of human cognitive ability.

Resources:

Greenfieldboyce, Nell. “Stone Flakes Made by Modern Monkeys Trigger Big Questions about Early Humans.” NPR, March 10, 2023, sec. Shots – Health News. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/10/1161652099/monkey-stone-flakes-early-humans-tools.

“Monkeys Use Tools to Crack Nuts, Shuck Oysters .” CGTN, March 2018. https://news.cgtn.com/news/3451444f7a6b7a6333566d54/share_p.html.

Proffitt, Tomos, Jonathan S. Reeves, David R. Braun, Suchinda Malaivijitnond, and Lydia V. Luncz. “Wild Macaques Challenge the Origin of Intentional Tool Production.” Science Advances 9, no. 10 (March 10, 2023): eade8159. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade8159.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. 2018. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Fourth edition. Thames & Hudson.

Zorich, Zach. “What Stone-Wielding Macaques Can Tell Us about Early Human Tool Use.” Scientific American, March 10, 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-stone-wielding-macaques-can-tell-us-about-early-human-tool-use/.

Further Reading:

• https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/news/2018/mar/macaques-choose-stone-tools-based-own-size-and-strength
• https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171904

         Over the course of the last few millennia, mankind has undergone rapid development that has spawned many things that we consider to be vital to society, whether it be agriculture or iPhones. However, amidst the rush for improved technologies, some groups have managed to remain rooted in the past and continue to live life similar to how humanity did many thousands of years ago, namely the people of the North Sentinel Island in the Indian Ocean. These people have remained in isolation for 60,000 years of history, save for a few encounters with anthropologists and colonial-era ships, but are incredibly hostile towards any intruders on their island (McDougall, 2006). Regardless, these people have proven interesting to anthropologists for many reasons, including their genetic relation to “their pre-Neolithic ancestors” and the clues they could hold to deciphering more about ancient humanity (McDougall, 2006). The only known visit to their island reported that there were “a group of huts […] with a carefully-tended fire outside each one,” which could provide an accurate picture of ancient human settlements and allow us to better understand other archeological finds around the world and provide more context to the use of bioarchaeological techniques to understand the cultures of ancient peoples (Smith, 2018). By using a current and intact example of a pre-Neolithic village and lifestyle, we can compare, and contrast knowledge gained from the North Sentinelese to the bodies and archaeological sites found from other civilizations to gain better insight into their traditions and practices. However, we know a few things about this group that can aid research, particularly the existence of burial practices within their society. These practices have been observed a few times, but most notably with intruders they have killed and gifts they have buried. After killing two Indian fishermen in 2006, they were buried in “shallow graves” in the sand of the island’s beach (McDougall, 2006). A similar treatment was also given to the pigs and toy doll that were given as a gift to the Sentinelese in the 1970s (Survival International). This indicates that this group displays at least some modicum of reverence for some objects and the dead, some of which aren’t even their own people or species, and could point to the existence of possible religious practices and ceremonies. These practices could be used to contextualize similar practices of other island peoples and allow us to gain a better understanding of their processes and spiritual reasons regarding burial rites. Research on these peoples would open a window to humanity’s past that could unlock many secrets about our development, however many question whether that is worth the disruption and likely decimation of an entire indigenous peoples. Ultimately, many have decided that the price is not worth this and elected to cease sending anthropologists to the island in 1996 (Survival International). 

Other Readings

History of North Sentinel Island: https://historydaily.org/the-little-known-history-of-north-sentinel-island-untouched-by-modern-civilization/4

Anthropological Visits to the Island: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/surprised-the-sentinelese-killed-someone-first-anthropologist-to-enter-north-sentinel-island/articleshow/66787948.cms?from=mdr

Works Cited

International, Survival. “Sentinelese.” Survival International. Accessed October 1, 2023.  https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/sentinelese#:~:text=The%20men%20carry%20spears%2C%20bows%20and%20arrows.&text=Although%20commonly%20described%20in%20the,have%20been%20in%20the%20Andamans. 

McDougall, Dan. “Survival Comes First for Sentinel Islanders – the World’s Last ‘stone-Age’ Tribe.” The Guardian, February 12, 2006. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/12/theobserver.worldnews12. 

Smith, Kiona N. “Everything We Know about the Isolated Sentinelese People of North Sentinel Island.” Forbes, September 12, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/11/30/everything-we-know-about-the-isolated-sentinelese-people-of-north-sentinel-island/?sh=541711ce35a0. 

Khan, Tanveer. “North Sentinel Island: Home to an Uncontacted, Hostile and Primitive Tribe.” STSTW Media – Unusual stories and intriguing news., November 20, 2019. https://www.ststworld.com/north-sentinel-island/. 

“North Sentinel Island.” Wikipedia, September 20, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island. 

Within anthropological studies, there has almost always been an unacknowledged feud between the study of linguistics and archaeology. Although focusing on past human behavior, the work of linguistics, unlike that of archaeology, has languages that “are still living lineages” (Heggarty). However, it is crucial to remember that fundamentally both studies rely on the remains of past societies (whether artifacts or language) and can be used to further the research within the respective fields. Although linguistics “does not need any written history to help” according to linguistic researchers such as Paul Heggarty, archaeological finds have been crucial to the advancement of linguistics. Valuable finds, such as the Rosetta Stone, a granodiorite stela with a text translated in hieroglyphics, demotic script, and Greek, allowed intellectuals to begin to decipher hieroglyphs and “unlock the secrets of the ancient civilization” (Solly).

The World Heritage Site Bogazköy-Hattusha in northern Turkey for the past 100 years has discovered thousands of clay tablets with cuneiform writing providing valuable information concerning the Hittites history. Following the Hittite state, Hattusha was destroyed “around 1200 BC during the Bronze Age collapse” (Milligan). In the past year, archaeologists uncovered a seemingly typical clay tablet with the common Hittite cultic text. After further inspection, researchers found, buried within the Hittite writing, a recitation in a hitherto unknown language. A thrill for linguists and archaeologists alike.

Figure 1: At this excavation site at the foot of Ambarlikaya in Bogazköy-Hattusha in Turkey, a cuneiform tablet with a previously unknown Indo-European language was discovered. (Image: Andreas Schachner)

The language is still undergoing precise classification as it is, presently, incomprehensible. Professor Elisabeth Reiken from the Julius-Maximilians University has confirmed the text to be a part of the Antolian-Indo-European language family. Although close to the origins of the Palaic language, the text seems more compatible with Luwian dialects of Late Bronze Age Anatolia. The new language was an unsurprising find for the Head Chair of Near Eastern Studies, Professor Daniel Schwemer. Whose research on other clay tablets from the site displayed how the Hittite people “were uniquely interested in recording rituals in foreign languages” (Schachner). The tablets offer a slight insight into the Hittite rituals and therefore a further observation of the linguistics within the Late Bronze Age of Anatolia. The artifacts from the Bogazköy-Hattusha Site additionally provided the ability to view passages in Luwian and Palaic which are closely related to Hittite and Kalasma. 

Figure 2: Hittite Cuneiform Tablet, baked clay Hattusha Late Bronze Age 13th century BCE. (Image: Leman Altuntaş)

Although, the majority of data for linguistics is still attainable through the dialects and languages spoken today, without such artifacts these major developments in linguistic studies would not be possible. The clay tablets from the Bogazköy-Hattusha Site were able to help linguists define the nature and culture around language in northern Turkey during the Bronze Age, a period where linguistic data is minimal. Archaeology can help track the movement and lives of people from the past so it shouldn’t be surprising that it can similarly help linguists track the evolution of languages. Even though anthropological fields have historically been separated, it’s important to remember that “the cross-disciplinary whole is far greater than the sum of its individual parts” (Heggarty). It is not possible to have an in-depth understanding of historical linguistics without acknowledging the other aspects and studies of prehistory, such as archaeology.

References:

Altuntaş, Leman. “A New Indo-European Language Discovered in the Hittite Capital Hattusha.” Arkeonews, 21 Sept. 2023, arkeonews.net/a-new-indo-european-language-discovered-in-the-hittite-capital-hattusha/. 

Heggarty, Paul. “Archaeology and Language – Fifteen Eighty Four: Cambridge University Press.” Fifteen Eighty Four | Cambridge University Press – The Official Blog of Cambridge University Press, 18 Mar. 2014, www.cambridgeblog.org/2014/03/archaeology-and-language/. 

Milligan, Markus. “Archaeologists Discover Previously Unknown Indo-European Language in Turkey.” HeritageDaily, 22 Sept. 2023, www.heritagedaily.com/2023/09/archaeologists-discover-previously-unknown-indo-european-language-in-turkey/148679. 

Schachner, Andreas. “New Indo-European Language Discovered.” Startseite – Universität Würzburg, 20 Aug. 2023, www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/news-and-events/news/detail/news/new-indo-european-language-discovered/. 

Solly, Meilan. “Two Hundred Years Ago, the Rosetta Stone Unlocked the Secrets of Ancient Egypt.” Smithsonian, Smithsonian Institution, 27 Sept. 2022, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rosetta-stone-hieroglyphs-champollion-decipherment-egypt-180980834/. 

Additional Sources:

MacGinnis, John. “Archaeologists Discover Lost Language.” University of Cambridge, 10 May 2012, www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/archaeologists-discover-lost-language. 

Ehret, Christopher. “Linguistic Archaeology – African Archaeological Review.” SpringerLink, Springer US, 18 Sept. 2012, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-012-9116-x. 

The practice of burying the dead is a deeply rooted human, or so we thought, tradition that most likely began even before written history. It is not only a ritual to bring peace for the deceased, but can also reflect on the cultural and spiritual beliefs of a group. Turns out this is not only a human ritual, but non-human animal species have also been found to bury their dead. The homo naledi are a primate species that was discovered by Lee Berger at Stony Brook University (Romey). The homo naledi are scarily similar to the homo sapien on a physical level including similar: teeth, jaws and feet (Johanson). Thousands of their bone fragments were found in a deep underground chamber dubbed “the Chute”, located within the Rising Star cave system in South Africa’s Transvaal region (Romey). Although the name suggests that the bodies were dropped down “the Chute”, the condition of the skeletal remains alludes to the idea that the bodies were individually placed, like in graves for modern burials. The researchers who first found these remains said they were “found so deep within the cave system that they must have been intentionally put there by other members of the species (Davis)”. This burial is said to have occurred about 300,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest burials that we know of thus far. The arrangement of bodies within this complicated terrain hint at a symbolic or ritualistic significance. A study was conducted to see if primates were able to conduct rituals and it was found they only met certain qualifications, so it was called proto-rituals (Tennie & Schaik). For humans, to be considered a ritual, the action must be symbolic by nature and must be copied. The definition is similar for primates, which must follow the following criteria: “socially shared, symbolic feature(s) that are created via actions and/or results that require copying” (Tennie & Schaik). Some researchers argue that this presumed burial site reflect the homo naledi’s beliefs in an afterlife or their desire to commemorate the deceased. Others suggest that they may have been a way to strengthen social bonds within the group to express grief or loss. The practice of burying the dead has persisted across hundreds of thousands of years and continues to be a central aspect of human cultures worldwide. While modern burial practices may vary slightly from those of early homo species, the underlying principles of respect for the deceased and the need to commemorate their lives, as well as their ancestral past, remain consistent. 

Archeologists looking at the bones of 1 out of the 15 homo naledi found (Clark). 

Paleoanthropologist Lee Berger and the skull replica of a homo naledi (Eloff). 

References:

Clark, Robert. National Geographic, 2023, Accessed 1 October 2023.

Davis, Josh. “Claims that ancient hominins buried their dead could alter our understanding of human evolution.” Natural History Museum, 5 June 2023, https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/june/claims-homo-naledi-buried-their-dead-alter-our-understanding-human-evolution.html. Accessed 1 October 2023.

Eloff, Brett. University of Kent, 5 November 2016, Accessed 1 October 2023.

Johanson, Donald C. “Homo naledi | Cave Site & Facts.” Britannica,  5 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-naledi. Accessed 1 October 2023.

Romey, Kristin. “A mysterious human species may have been the first to bury their dead.” National Geographic, 5 June 2023, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/earliest-human-burial-homo-naledi-berger. Accessed 1 October 2023.

Tennie, Claudio, and Carel P van Schaik. “Spontaneous (minimal) ritual in non-human great apes?.” Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences vol. 375,1805 (2020): 20190423. doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0423

Further Reading: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/science/ancient-humans-homo-naledi-buried-dead.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/05/homo-naledi-burial/

Discovering how people once thought is vital in contextualizing the events which unfolded in the past. Learning the rhetoric and philosophies of past people can inform the motivations and ideology which may have contributed to the manner in which events occurred. At a glance, this issue may look like it should be left entirely to historians as thoughts seem to leave no trace in the archeological record. Afterall, you can not dig a 50 centimeter by 50 centimeter sampling hole and find a thought floating around in there.

 What an archeologist can uncover in a sampling hole are symbols (which are pretty darn close to thoughts). A symbol is an object, Item, or idea which represents something else. An archeologist in the Yucatan peninsula might uncover a “yellow glyph” and identify it as the Maya symbol for south. (Miller and Taub 65-67) All human cultures are full of symbols, and very few if any are universal to all cultures. Mesoamerican religions offer strong depictions of serpents as revered gods (Miller and Taub 149) whereas Abrahamic religions are more likely to associate snakes with feared “devil.” It is the job of the archeologist to look past their own cultural symbols in order to decipher past ones.

During the conquest of the Americas, many Spaniards lacked the moral relativism to appreciate the culture of Indigenous Mesoamericans. Mesoamerican texts were labeled as idolatry and were burned. Information regarding thousands of years of recorded religion, culture, and ideology were engulfed by flames. Only fifteen pre-contact Mesoamerican books survived the conquest (Turner, 4). Despite this scarcity caused by Colonial atrocities, much can still be learned from these pre Colonial sources.

A wonderful example of this is the oldest surviving book in the Americas, the Códice Maya de México. Dated to 1051-1154, this document measures the movement of the planet Venus, revealing information about Mayan astronomy and mathematics through the way in which they were able to measure planetary movements. These movements are also contextualized within Mayan religiosity. 

On page 7 of the codex Venus’s 8 day period of disappearance is represented by Mayan numeral 8 () on the top left corner of the codex (also a symbol!). It is thought that Venus enters a “supernatural realm of jade and sunlight” depicted by a lance holding deity beside a “tree whose branches produce precious round jewels” Venus then returns on page 8 as the morning star (Turner, 76). Although the Mayans had a different writing system, a base 20 counting system, and a pantheon of unique deities. It is still possible to understand their symbols and the roles they played within their society. This example regarding pages 7-8 of the codex is only a sample of what we can learn from pre Hispanic books. 

While much can be deciphered from the few remaining pre Colonial books, Archeologists and historians also rely heavily on post contact sources while still thinking critically about the biases held by their authors. Bernal Diaz Del Castillo’s Narrative, for example, can tell us much about Aztec foreign relations with neighboring groups. Besides travelogues, ethnographic sources were also made. Book 10 of the Florentine codex by Fray Bernadino de Sahagun has a list of Aztec Tlatoani and the townships conquered during the reign of each of them. Book six of Sahagun’s codex revolves entirely around Aztec rhetoric and moral philosophy making it extremely useful in understanding Mesoamerican thought. Archeologists must combine knowledge from both types of sources in order to get a clearer image of the past.

Today, the internet presents exciting new opportunities for Mesoamerican cognitive archeology. The Getty Museum is set to launch the Digital Florentine Codex, an innovative and intuitive new way to study that source. The codex will include searchable terms, glossaries, lesson plans, and references to other sources including pre Hispanic ones. By combining pre contact and post contact sources, Mesoamerican thought can be better understood, allowing archaeologists to discover the hidden meaning among symbols lying between the stratigraphic layers of Mexico and Central America. By unearthing lost cognition and increasing its accessibility we can begin to counteract the cultural genocide perpetrated by Spanish colonization.

Works Cited (I have a physical copy of both of these books. If anyone wants to borrow them email me at dmartinezhahn@vassar.edu)

Turner, Andrew D. “Códice Maya de México: Understanding the Oldest Surviving Book of the Americas” Getty Research Institute, 2022, Los Angeles, California. 

Miller, Mary. Taub, Carl. “An Illustrated Dictionary of The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and The Maya.” Thames & Hudson, 1993, New York, New York.

Online Sources

Getty page for the digital Florentine Codex

Library of Congress HD images of the Florentine Codex

An amazing visual source for understanding Tenochtitlan

Britannica encyclopedia source on general Mayan hieroglyphs

New York Times source on the codex

Recent findings in the Lake Turkana region of Kenya date the oldest stone tools back thousands of years earlier than what was originally thought. The oldest stone tools were previously thought to be made by human ancestor Homo habilis (Figure 1) 2.8 million years ago in modern-day Ethiopia. However, these new stone tools push that date back to 3.3 million years, and were not even made by a direct human ancestor (Figure 1).  

The tools were found alongside the teeth of Paranthropus boisei (Figure 1), a type of hominin, and co-existed with many human ancestors like the Homo habilis. The teeth being found with the tools could indicate that Paranthropus used these stone tools. Thirty of these stone tools were found at the Lomekwi 3 site of many fossilized animal remains, those remains showing signs of butchery. The animals at the site included ancient hippopotamus, antelope, and baboon. These stone tools included hammerstones, cores, and flakes, all tools used to skin or pound animals and animal meat. The use of stone tools opens up a lot of new food options in the competitive environment. Especially with the tough, leathery skin of a hippo, stone tools would be very beneficial to getting into the meat. Most likely, the Paranthropus found a hippo carcass and cut off the meat they needed, as there were not any stones used for weaponry at the site (Figure 2). 

Different methods of dating were used to confirm the date of the tools, such as radioactive dating and geomagnetic reversal dating. Radioactive dating is a method of dating rocks and other minerals by tracking specific radioactive isotopes like uranium or argon. By determining the rate of decay of the isotope, a relative date of the tool in question can be gathered. Geomagnetic reversal dating works by tracking the number of complete reversals in the Earth’s magnetic field, specifically in the poles. These dating methods, together with site analysis, proved that these stone tools were around 3.3 million years old. However, experts question if Paranthropus even made the tools. Some scientists believe that there was no way for the Paranthropus to have used stone tools, as they have teeth that indicate a more vegetarian diet, negating the need for meat-cutting tools. Even if Paranthropus didn’t construct the tools, the earlier date of use is still quite significant. 

However, if Paranthropus boisei did make the tools, it shows a type of convergent adaptation, in that different lineages saw the need for the same type of object. It also goes against the idea that the modern human lineage was the only one capable of tool making for a specific purpose. Humans may not be the only ones capable of this sophisticated tool usage, other organisms can develop it as well, which is a notable development. 

References:

1. BBC World News. “Ancient Stone Tools Found in Kenya Made by Early Humans.” BBC News, February 10, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-64595418. 
2. Hunt, Katie. “Sophisticated Stone Tools May Predate Humans, Study Suggests.” CNN, February 10, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/world/first-stone-tools-hippo-scn/index.html.  
3. Kreier, Freda. “Ancient Stone Tools Suggest Early Humans Dined on Hippo.” Nature News, February 9, 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00386-6.  
4. Weule, Genelle. “Nearly 3 Million Years Ago, a Butcher Hacked up a Hippo with a Crafted Stone Tool. They May Not Have Been Human.” 2.9-million-year-old butchery site in Kenya suggests humans perhaps weren’t first to use crafted stone tools – ABC News, February 9, 2023. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-02-10/fossils-animal-bones-stone-tools-early-hominin-east-africa/101937222. 
5. Smithsonian. “2.9-Million-Year-Old Butchery Site Reopens Case of Who Made First Stone Tools.” Phys.org, February 9, 2023. https://phys.org/news/2023-02-million-year-old-butchery-site-reopens-case.html.  

Further Reading

1. Coleman, Jude. “New Caledonian Crows Keep Their Favorite Tools Safe.” Inside Science, February 15, 2022. https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-caledonian-crows-keep-their-favorite-tools-safe.  
2. Muller, Antoine, Ceri Shipton, and Chris Clarkson. “Stone Toolmaking Difficulty and the Evolution of Hominin Technological Skills.” Nature News, April 7, 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09914-2.  

Archaeology deals with artifacts and human remains from the past. Forensic anthropology, specifically, is the “special sub-field of physical anthropology… that involves applying skeletal analysis and techniques in archaeology to solving criminal cases” (Smithsonian). While this may seem somewhat straight forward, there are ethical issues that are relevant when it comes to all forms of anthropology and archaeology, but forensic anthropology especially. It’s the “responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record” (SAA, 2018). However, this is not always taken seriously as human remains are often dug up, examined, photographed, posted and shared physically and electronically, and in some cases more severe actions occur, such as taking remains to the moon. 

Ethics in anthropology and archaeology are especially vital when it comes to working with remains of non-white people. In 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, also known as NAGPRA, was created with the intention of providing “a process for federal agencies and museums that receive federal funds to repatriate or transfer from their collections certain Native American cultural items…to lineal descendants” (BLM). Any institution that receives federal funding, other than Smithsonian which has its own laws to try to ensure ethicality, must comply. 

Furthermore, certain groups, such as the Manhattan district attorney’s office, have created teams to try and restore stolen artifacts that were obtained or kept unethically and put them back closer to where they were found. However, this itself isn’t free of ethical accusations and questions. Recently, a Greek archaeologist by the name of Christos Tsirogiannis accused the aforementioned district attorney’s office’s antiquities trafficking unit of taking his anthropological discoveries after he “has helped the unit recover and repatriate ancient treasures to their respective countries of origin, providing crucial evidence obtained through his own extensive research” (Alberge, 2023). The goal of the program is to reintroduce ethics in a situation where it was taken away, yet in doing so the district attorney’s office failed to notice their own incompetencies. 

Another question of ethicality arose when “around 2,000 treasures were reported ‘missing, stolen, or damaged’ over a ‘significant’ period of time” (Glynn, 2023) from the British Museum. While, at face value, this seems like a catastrophic atrocity, there has been public backlash. This is because the stolen artifacts were originally obtained by the museum through thievery as well. Because the artifacts were mostly Greek and Roman gems and jewelry, NAGPRA does not apply. Geoffrey Robertson, a British-Australian restitution expert, author, and human rights lawyer, describes the British Museum as “the world’s greatest receiver of stolen property. Tourists should bear in mind that much of the interesting ethnic stuff that’s on display is, in fact, stolen” (Wilder, 2023). This is vital to remember in order to not erase the past and ensure that people question what they see. 

While seeing artifacts in museums seems exciting and educational, it’s all lost if those artifacts are stolen or obtained unethically.

References :

Alberge, Dalya. “‘Enough is Enough’: US Looted Treasures Unit Faces Accusations Over Credit.” The Guardian. September 26, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/ sep/26/antiquities-trafficking-unit-archaeologist-christos-tsirogiannis

“Compliance: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” National Park Service. January 21, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/compliance.htm

“Ethics in Professional Archaeology.” Society for American Archaeology, 2018. https://www.saa.org/career-practice/ethics-in-professional-archaeology

Glynn, Paul. “British Museum Asks Public and Experts to Help Recover Stolen Artefacts.” BBC News. September 26, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66921621

“Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act.” Bureau of Land Management. https://www.blm.gov/programs/cultural-heritage-and-paleontology/archaeology/archaeology-in-blm/nagpra

“What Do Forensic Anthropologists and Detectives Have in Common?” Smithsonian. https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/anthropology-and-social-studies/forensic-anthropology

Wilder, Charly. “When a Visit to the Museum Becomes an Ethical Dilemma.” The New York Times. February 14, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/travel/museums -stolen-art .html

Further Reading :

https://news.ufl.edu/2023/05/human-dna-everywhere-ethics/

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1563/isb-buff-case-update-04212021.htm

The field of Bioarcheology involves the study of skeletal remains of humans, specifically those found at archaeological sites. The study of these remains gives unparalleled insight into the many facets of ancient civilization, especially in relation to diet and environment. One of the most important subfields of Bioarcheology is dental anthropology (Hillson 2014). The study of one’s teeth is among the best ways of extracting information regarding both the individual who the tooth belongs to, as well as that individual’s environment and culture.  

Due to tooth enamel being the hardest tissue in the body, being 96% dense inorganic hydroxyapatite, it tends to preserve very well regardless of environmental factors (ADA 2022). In fact, a 1.8-million-year-old human tooth was found in 2022 in the nation of Georgia (Reed 2022).  

Through a multitude of tests that can be run on the tooth, like carbon dating, archaeologists can put together a somewhat detailed picture of what that individual’s life was like. From lab tests using carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the enamel, scientists can understand and reconstruct diet and where food sources were originally from (Mayne 2015). This could be pivotal in establishing whether one was a part of a nomadic hunter gathering society or if they relied on agriculture for sustenance. Other testing can even give insight into the last 20 years of that individual’s life, which can be pivotal in tracking the progression of a person’s life. This is something that is otherwise incredibly difficult to learn from any other finds at a site (Mayne 2015). Scientists can also extract the exact age of the individual when they died using isotopic dating (Mayne 2015).  

Other than using chemical testing, information can also be extracted purely through observation of the tooth. People of Hunter Gatherer societies typically had overbites, causing a specific grinding of the tooth to become common (ADA 2022). People of agriculture-based societies typically show increased pitting, small holes on the front of the tooth, due to the more common reliance on wheat and other carbs (ADA 2022). This also will lead to the increased development of cavities (ADA 2022). 

Without the analyzation of teeth, scientists’ understanding of ancient people would be far more limited. They provide unparalleled insight into the past, giving data that not only leads to explanations of the person who the tooth belonged to, but also of that person’s environment and culture.  

-Joseph Howard

Extra reading : 

https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/mg74qm70w

https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue36/hollund_index.html

References:

AAFS. “Teeth within Anthropology.” All Things AAFS. 2015. https://allthingsaafs.com/tag/teeth-within-anthropology/

Hillson, Simon. Tooth Development in Human Evolution and Bioarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511894916h

How Stuff Works. Bioarcheology. 2015. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/archaeology/bioarchaeology.html

Reed, Besty. “1.8m-year-old tooth of early human found on dig in Georgia.” The Guardian, September 9, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/sep/09/1-point-8-million-year-old-tooth-of-early-human-found-on-dig-in-georgia.

“Picture of the Teeth.” Sherwood Park Dental, No Date. https://sherwoodparkdental.ca/picture-of-the-teeth/.