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.

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

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

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

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.

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.

Sources:

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

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.

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

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

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology