Anth.106 Ppt. Lecture-10A Summary Power Point Coverage Of Chapters 1-7 In Renfrew Amp Bahn Textbook (By G. Mumford 2021)

Introduction to Archaeology: Spring 2021
Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.):
Lecture 14: Review of chapters 1-7.
© Gregory Mumford (2021)

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed): chp.1-7
1-7. Review of Chapters 1-7.
The following review has selected some main points from
Chapters 1-7 (I will draw exam/TH-1 questions from these points):
• Chp. 1: The searchers …
• Chp. 2: The variety of the evidence …
• Chp. 3: Survey and excavation …
• Chp. 4: Dating methods …
• Chp. 5: Social organization …
• Chp. 6: Environmental archaeology …
• Chp. 7: Subsistence and diet …
SEE MS. Doc. STUDY AID FOR FORMAT (on-line & e-mail)
I will also reflect some documentaries and special lectures in
the exam, by asking for broad summaries with specific details.
• Neolithi Britain: Stonehenge - Overview of diverse aspects with examples
• Indus Valley Civ./Harrapan - Overview of diverse aspects with examples
• Roman Empire: Pompei - Overview of diverse aspects with examples
NOTE: Exam = in-class (absence requires doc./note); Take-Home = “at home”

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter One:
• Key points to know for exam/TH
• Be “aware” of other points
i.e., - Read the textbook chapters once (+?)
- Re-read all the power point lectures
- Focus on the exam review points .

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.1
0. Introduction: The nature & aims of archaeology …
6. Aims & questions:
Archaeology . . .
• Aim = discovering humanity’s past
- Traditionally: reconstructing past “puzzle”
- Now: also reconstructing recent “puzzle” +!
• Studying “lifeways” of people:
- Daily life
- Environmental interactions
- Determining WHY / HOW . . .
regarding lifestyle & culture
• Processual archaeology
- Explaining change → studying
processes of cultural change.
- Forms questions → get answers
• Post-processual / interpretive archaeology:
- Assesses symbolic & cognitive components
in past societies.
- Now diverse goals: E.g., ethnic groups; agency
Sea Peoples 1200 BC

1. The Searchers: The History of Archaeology.
3.4. The Three Age System:
• 1836/1848 AD: C.J. Thomsen
suggested artifacts from Danish
barrows displayed 3 Ages:
Stone, Bronze, & Iron Ages.
→ system = adopted in Europe.
• Later: Stone Age → “old” & “new”
= Paleolithic and Neolithic.
• This system was less applicable
outside Europe
• Remains a key class. system
• Conceptual advances:
- 1. Antiquity of humankind
- 2. Principle of evolution
- 3. Three-Age system
• → Other scholars → typologies:
- Oscar Montelius: fibulae
- John Evans: coins
IRON
AGE
BRONZE
AGE
STONE
AGE

3.6. Discovering Early
Civilizations:
• By 1800s, conceptual basis for
modern archaeology = initiated.
• Discoveries in Old & New Worlds
honed these ideas.
EGYPT:
• 1798-1800 Napoleonic expedition
found Rosetta Stone
• in Hieroglyphs, Demotic, Greek
• Deciphered by Champollion in
1822

4.3. Rise of archaeological
science:
• Post WW II = many scientific tools
available:
- Radiocarbon dating (C14) in 1949
Dating sites & independent chron.
- Trace-element analysis
Identifying materials (sources/trade)
- Organic chemistry:
Organic residues (pot contents)
- Isotopic studies:
Diet & nutrition of past populations
- Archaeogenetics & molecular arch.
DNA & human evolution

5.2. Birth of “New Archaeology”:
• Lewis Binford & others → developed
new approaches to interpreting the
archaeological record: arguing …
1. Arch. Evidence has more potential for
assessing ancient society & economy
2. Specifying evidence behind conclusions
3. Explaining (vs. describing)
4. Analyzing cultures as systems with
sub-systems: subsistence, technology,
trade, etc.
5. Focusing more on scientific approaches
6. Quantification & statistics
7. Computers (1960s+)
Now shift from functional-processual →
cognitive-processual (belief systems, etc.)
Mechanics …
→
Thoughts …

6.6. Beginning the new
millennium:
• 1980s-1990s post-modernist trends
→ followed in archaeology as well
“Postprocessual” approach:
- Multiple methods to interpreting
archaeological record
- Patchwork of data makes objectivity
impossible (multiple interpretations
from probable-improbable answers)
→ need inferences
- Many different approaches:
a. Empathetic understanding &
interpretation
- Tailor-make study to specific
culture & context
- reject cross-cultural comparison
- reject explanations from
generalizations

“Postprocessual” approach:
- Some data = insufficient and
still requires earlier processual
approaches.
- Regions & periods with rich
historical sources maintain
more interpretive approaches.
- Greater emphasis in artifact
analysis
- Looking at agency:
The broader social meaning &
symbolism of an artifact.

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter Two:

2. What is Left? The Variety of the Evidence.
1.2. Material culture debris
survives in many ways:
1. Cold sites:
Sub-zero temperatures (C)
E.g., Pazyryk: organic mat.
2. Dry sites:
Arid environments
E.g., Peru: organic mat.
3. Wet sites:
Water logged (no oxygen)
E.g., Florida swamps: org.
4. Natural disasters:
Volcanic eruptions (pumice)
E.g., Pompeii, etc.
Mudslides (sealed deposits)
E.g., Canada: Hope slide.
→ Need to know processes of
preservation & what = lost
→ design optimum Q and A
Exceptional
preservation
of organic
materials …

2.1. Basic Categories of
archaeological evidence:
1. Artifacts:
2. Non-artifactual remains (ecofacts):
3. Anc. sites (landscapes & regions)
1. Artifacts:
- Var. def.: human-altered items/features?
- Or: items produced, altered, or used
by people (“small finds”).
- Usually: human-made/altered portable
items: stone tools, pottery containers,
metal implements, etc.
- May apply many layers of analysis to
an artifact: For example pottery …
a. Date of production
b. Source (local / regional / foreign)
c.Form (stylistic diff. before/after
d. Function (storage/eating/ritual/etc.)
e. Contents (res. →diet); Dec. (typology)
Defined by some as “artifacts”
How do archaeologists
define “an artifact”?
What is “an artifact”?

2.1. Basic Categories of
archaeological evidence:
1. Artifacts:
2. Non-artifactual remains (ecofacts):
3. Anc. sites (landscapes & regions)
1. Artifacts:
- Var. def.: human-altered items/features?
- Or: items produced, altered, or used
by people (“small finds”).
- Usually: human-made/altered portable
items: stone tools, pottery containers,
metal implements, etc.
- May apply many layers of analysis to
an artifact: For example pottery …
a. Date of production
b. Source (local / regional / foreign)
c. Form (stylistic diff. before/after
d. Function (storage/eating/ritual/etc.)
e. Contents (res. →diet); Dec. (typology)
Defined by some as “artifacts”

2.1. Importance of context:
- All artifacts/features need to be
placed in context (i.e., their matrix)
- Matrix: = material assoc. directly with
an item (> sediment: gravel, sand, clay).
- Provenience: = location vertically &
horizontally in the matrix and the
association with other finds.
- Every item removed from its matrix →
bias in interpretation (looting; preserv.)
- All components = crucial to reconstruct
past lifeways (evidence = biased)
- Primary context: = initial material within
which an artifact is deposited: grave fill
- Secondary context: = disturbance of
material in which an artifact is found.
- Agents of destruction: human & natural

2. Non-artifactual remains
(ecofacts):
- organic & environmental
debris
- Osteological remains
(animals; humans)
- Plant debris
- Soils & sediments
- Diet & environmental
conditions
3. Archaeological Sites:
- The contexts within we
find artifacts, features,
structures, etc.
- Scatter of pottery
- Scatter of stone tools
- Isolated artifacts
- Isolated monument
(village/town/house) “Ecofacts”
What about
non-artifactual
remains related
to (past) human
activity?

3.1. Formation Processes:
- Infinite / innumerable formation
processes affecting the excavated
artifact assemblage and its matrix
from production through discarding,
dormancy, & rediscovery (taphonomy)
- Cultural formation processes
(c-transforms)
- Natural formation processes
(n-transforms)
- Human impact is deliberate through
accidental manufacture,
use,
re-use / modification,
abandonment,
re-discovery / disturbance,
of items.
The formation processes
are varied & complex:
i.e., = many ways in which
artifacts & ecofacts
appear in excav. contexts

5.1. Natural form. processes:
How nature affects what
survives in the arch. record.
- Nature affects preservation in the
the archaeological record . . .
5.2. Inorganic materials:
- Usually clay, stone & metals survive.
Stone tools: 2+ million years BP/durable
Can analyze micro-wear
(cutting wood; hides; etc.)
Baked clay: pottery, bricks, adobe, etc.
= long-lived / “indestructible.”
Japan: 16,000; NE: 9000 yrs
Salt-humidity destroys pots
Metals: Gold, silver & lead = durable
Copper & bronze oxidize in
acid soils (green stain)
Iron rusts (cast from hollow)
Sea water → metallic salts

5.3. Organic materials:
- Archaeological matrix & climate
govern preservation of organic mat.
Matrix: = sediment / soil.
E.g., Chalk preserves animal &
human bones.
E.g., Acid soils disintegrate wood &
bone in several years
(discolorations = post holes).
E.g., Salt mines preserve organic
materials
E.g., Asphalt pits preserve organic
materials (La Brea tar pits)
Sometimes metal, salt, or oil in matrix
combat micro-organisms (bacteria):
E.g., Copper mines with wood, leather,
textiles, etc.

5.4. Preservation of organic
materials: Extreme conditions:
Dry environments:
Aridity/dryness = minimal water presence
= minimize micro-organisms
= minimal decay
Egypt: Predynastic bodies preserved
naturally (skin; hair; nails)
America: SW Pueblo culture
Dead placed in dry caves and
rock shelters → natural mummies
(hair; clothing; basketry; leather).
Peru: Burials with tattooed bodies,
textiles, basketry, food, etc.
Chile: Oldest artificial mummies =
enhanced by aridity.

Cold environments:
- Natural refrigeration preserves
for 1000s of years.
E.g., Siberia:
- Mammoths in permafrost/frozen
soil.
- Fell into crevices & buried by snow
and silt.
- Preserving flesh, hair, stomach
contents.
E.g., S. Siberia (Pazyryk in the Altai):
- Steppe nomad burial mounds
- Burials → moisture → frozen solid
permanently (total preservation).
- Wood, human skin (tattoos),
clothing, food, animals, etc.

5.5. Wet environments.
Wetland sites:
- Occur in lakes, swamps, marshes,
fens, and peat bogs.
- Have continuous wet & airless
(anaerobic/anoxic) conditions
→ preserves organic items.
- John Coles (UK): 75-90% (→100%)
of items = organic at his sites.
- Wetland sites = endangered now.
- Wetland = 6% of global land area.
NW U.S.: Ozette site
1750 AD mudslide
Whaling settlement
50,000+ artifacts

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter Three:

3. Where? Survey and Excavation of Sites and Features.
2.2.d. Reconnaissance survey
in practice.
A regional survey maximizes data
retrieval versus excavation time / cost.
a. Defining regional boundaries:
a. Natural (island; valley)
b. Cultural (artifact dispersal)
c. Arbitrary (measured area)
b. Intense study of regions:
a. Geography / geology
b. History
c. Investigation into occupation, etc
→ Is a study warranted?
→ What type of study is needed?
(nature of the terrain)
→ Logistics for study/survey
(desert versus jungle)
→ Collection vs. site study of evidence
→ Total collection vs. sampling strategy
Cyprus (E. Med.)

2.2.d. Reconnaissance survey
in practice.
• A regional survey maximizes data
retrieval versus excav. time / cost.
a. Defining regional boundaries:
a. Natural (island; valley)
b. Cultural (artifact dispersal)
c. Arbitrary (measured area)
b. Intense study of regions:
a. Geography / geology
b. History
c. Investigation into occupation, etc
→ Is a study warranted?
→ What type of study is needed?
(nature of the terrain)
→ Logistics for study/survey
(desert versus jungle)
→ Collection vs. site study of evidence
→ Total collection vs. sampling strategy
Cyprus (E. Med.)

• Unsystematic survey:
a. Field walking:
- searching,
- collecting / examining
- recording / locating
artifacts.
= results biased towards
larger sites (vs. minor ones)
• Systematic survey:
- Using a grid
traverses/transects
- Searching an area according
to a pre-set system
- Squares (sampled/all)
- Set linear routes across land 1967-1980/82 Israeli
Archaeological survey of N. Sinai

• Unsystematic survey:
a. Field walking:
- searching,
- collecting / examining
- recording / locating
artifacts.
= results biased towards
larger sites (vs. minor ones)
• Systematic survey:
- Using a grid
traverses/transects
- Searching an area according
to a pre-set system
- Squares (sampled/all)
- Set linear routes across land
Transect (line-walking)
Sampling
each area

• Systematic survey: cont.’
Repeated survey of same area
at different times & diff. crews
→ more successful!
• Artifacts more visible at diff.
times: e.g., after rain; overcast
• Standard field forms ensure
regularity in data collection
• Sometimes need minimal
test excavation
(determine depth of occupation)
• Excavation destroys original
data context
• Survey can be repeated
(= mostly non-destructive)
A. Simple random
B. Stratified random
C. Systematic
D. Stratified unaligned systematic

2.3. Aerial Reconnaissance:
• Many types:
- Satellite images
- Spy planes (high altitudes)
- Regular planes
- Balloons
- Drones
• Archaeological survey = mostly a
by-product of aerial reconnaissance
• A limited number of planes take
photos for archaeological surveys.
• Now can purchase specific satellite
imagery taken at requested time for
specific areas.

2.3.b. The use of aerial photographs:
• Aerial photograph analysis & expertise
= needed to find many archaeological
sites & potential sites.
E.g., old river channel vs. tire tracks
• 2 types:
a. oblique photos: often in archaeology
Good for standing
sites (castles; etc.)
b. vertical photos: mostly for mapping
Good for horizontal
exposures (top plan)
• Overlapping stereoscopic pairs → 3-D
(features stand out better)
• → Photogrammetric plans
i.e., generate contour lines/maps of
structures, large areas, surface surveys
Oblique photo
Vert.
photo

Photogrammetric plans
• can georeference/rectify oblique
views in a computer using known
reference points.
• Scale 1:2500 maps have good
detail (+/- 2 meters)
• Digital terrain modelling = good
in places of greater vertical contrast
(computer program corrections)
• Survey of surrounding environment:
- Aerial photos
- Crop marks
- Soil marks
E.g., ditches
enclosure
roadways
etc. Crop marks: two ring ditches at Merzien

Crop marks:
• Romano-British farm
• Ancient ditches on left
(flanking tracks, draining
land, boundary markers)
• Ancient ditches visible
on right in field.
• i.e., Crop marks

2.3.d. Remote sensing from high
altitude:
• Satellite images are being applied
more frequently in archaeology
LANDSAT satellite
- Record reflected light intensities
- Infrared radiation from ground
- Detects ancient levee systems
subsurf. Anc. river beds
ancient caravan routes
→ Spectral “signatures”:
- Designed for geology & veg. patterns
- Detected anc. quarries in Montana
→ False color LANDSAT imagery:
- Found Maya fields, settlements, new
sites, walled fields, house mounds, &
indicated them in diff. colors
Mayan ruins from space using
LANDSAT

Sideways-looking airborne radar
(SLAR):
• Return pulses of electromagnetic
radiation → penetrates clouds & veg.
revealing cities, fields, and canals.
Light Detection & Ranging (LiDAR):
• Infrared photographic film taken at
high altitude: SEES BENEATH VEG.
• High resolution radar imagery:
E.g., detecting cemetery, roads, sites,
E.g., Angkor 1000 yr-old temple
complex revealed = 260 sq. km
(pools; canals; etc.)
Satellite
image of
Angkor
temple site
in Cambodia

2018
Using LiDAR mapping & analysis in the
detection of ancient landscapes, settlements,
and urban planning in Khmer Empire:
E.g., Angkor Wat and elsewhere

2.5. Geographic Information Systems
• Collection
• Storage
• Retrieval of spatial data
• Analysis
• Display
→ Can conduct statistical analysis of
site distribution:
E.g., Cost-surface analysis:
Map of area of water catchments
terrain,
1 hour / 5 km walk, etc.
GIS – info on coordinates & attributes
of each site/plot → generate
spatial information via
1. point
2. line
3. polygon (area)
- Extra info: name, date, material, etc.

GIS continued:
Vector format:
- Data = points, lines, & polygons
Raster format:
- Each cell = spec. info across grid
Both types:
- Can now combine this info.
GIS needs diff. layers for diff.
Information:
E.g., Topography
Hydrology
Routes
Time periods, etc.
Can combine other data:
E.g., Aerial photos
Satellite images

GIS & Global Positioning System:
→ Obtain ground coordinates
→ Verify location
Digitizing existing maps = time
consuming & copyright issue!
Can use GIS within sites
Can use GIS to predict site loc.
based on observable patterns
elsewhere.
Predictive models of site location
Especially North America:
- Site loc. beside fresh water
in southerly areas
* Environmentally deterministic
GIS Viewsheds –attempts a more
humanistic approach to landscape
?

3.3. Subsurface detection:
3.3.a. Probes.
• Can place rods/borers to test
subsurface features
E.g., stone / hollows
• Augers (cores)
Can damage delicate artifacts
• Systematic use can locate
covered subsurface structures
• Can drill a hole and send in a
small (fibre optic) camera:
E.g., determining if a tomb is
empty prior to excavation.
(may save money)

3.4. Ground-based
remote sensing.
• Non-destructive
• Many types of
remote sensing
at ground level.
• Geophysical equipment
= active & passive
• Active: energy transmitted
• Passive: measures
physical properties.

3.4c. Electrical resistivity:
• Damp soil conducts electricity
• Resistivity measures subsurface
diff. in resistance to electrical
currents between electrodes.
→ Reveals filled ditches & pits with
more moisture (esp. in chalk)
than stone walls & roads.
Resistivity profiling:
• Widen distance between probes
→ reach greater depths
→ vertical pseudo section → 3-D
BUT = Slow technique!
→ some use mobile units on wheels
CAN’T be used in hard soil/dry sites
BEST in shallow 1-period sites
CAN be used near power lines and
metal (unlike magnetometers).

3.4.d. Magnetic survey methods.
• Esp. good at detecting fired clay
E.g., hearths, pottery kilns.
• Also finds iron items, pits, ditches
• These yield distortions in magnetic
field
• Iron oxide grains appear naturally
in random patterns in clay.
Fired clay 700+ deg. C. →
permanent magnetic properties
and an anomaly
Contents in pits & ditches yield
higher magnetic signatures than
their surroundings.
→Magnetometers reveal potential
areas for excavation:
E.g., Tombs in cemeteries
Blacker dots = higher mag. reading!

4.2. Methods of excavation:
Different techniques work at
diff. sites & diff. circumstances
(and diff. parts of same site)
• Single period sites can be
excavated broadly → plot the
provenience of all items
vertically & horizontally.
Deeply stratified sites are more
complex → sampling strategy
Two approaches → modified:
a. Vertical component:
Expose section → stratigraphy
b. Horizontal component:
Trace single layer/occ. phase to
maintain spatial information.
c. Combine both techniques:
Different methods.

4.2.a. Wheeler box-grid:
• Keeping vertical soil sections
(“baulks”) between squares
• Baulks enable tracing &
correlating different deep layers.
• Baulks are removed later to
reveal continuous feature.
4.2.b. Open area excavation:
• Argues Wheeler technique
imposes artificial limitations.
• Proposes opening large areas
& cutting baulks by need and at
different angles.
• Loses continuity in soil section.
• Accurate 3-D measurements to
retain layer sequence.
• Good for 1-period sites
4.2.c. Step-trenching:
• Used in deep excavations.

4.3. Recovery & recording evidence.
• Excavation results determined by
quality of recovery & recording
techniques.
• Ideally can reconstruct 3-D loc.
of all items within site (related to
artifacts, buildings, layers, etc.)
= unfeasible at complex urban sites
• Screening to rescue materials
from prime contexts:
→ full screening 1-period sites
→ selected screening in stratified
sites (occupation surfaces)
• Cataloguing artifacts
• Planning, mapping, photographs,
etc.
• Post-excavation analysis
See www.deltasinai.com
Hand-
written
and/or
digital

4.3. Recovery & recording evidence.
• Excavation results determined by
quality of recovery & recording
techniques.
• Ideally can reconstruct 3-D loc.
of all items within site (related to
artifacts, buildings, layers, etc.)
Less feasible at complex urban sites
• Screening to rescue materials
from prime contexts:
→ full screening 1-period sites
→ selected screening in stratified
sites (occupation surfaces)
• Cataloguing artifacts
• Planning, mapping, photographs,
etc.
• Post-excavation analysis
Var. programs → photos → 3-d

4.4. Processing & classification.
• Multiple specialists for diff. items
• Before cleaning items →
consider residue analysis. Etc.
- Food residue in pottery
- Blood residue on stone tools
• Sorting artifacts into categories:
(stone tools; pottery; metal items)
→ attributes:
a. Surface: decoration & color
b. Shape: measurements & shape
c. Technology: raw material
- Artifacts sharing attributes →
placed into types (typologies)
- Groups of artifacts & building types in
in space & time = assemblages
- Groups of similar assemblages =
archaeological cultures.

Sorting artifacts into categories:
→ attributes:

• Sorting artifacts into categories:
→ attributes:
An assemblage = a grouping of artifacts
that characterizes a culture (& sub-group)
and time period …including present day

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter Four:

4. When? Dating Methods and Chronology.
A.2. Relative Dating:
• Archaeologists need absolute dates:
- Artifact typology
- Architectural typology
- Climate sequence, etc.
2.1. Stratigraphy.
• Sequential/chron. Deposition of
strata/layers/deposits → relative
chronology from early-late layers
• Aim at precise excavation →
isolate each deposit & its artifacts
• Dating artifacts, structures, remains
associated with each deposit.
• “Association” = contemporary items
in same deposit (ideally sealed).
• Artifacts can be no later/recent than
the deposit itself (earlier-contemporary
items → final sealing of deposit).
Evolution of New York skyline

A.2. Relative Dating:
• Archaeologists need absolute dates:
- Artifact typology
- Architectural typology
- Climate sequence, etc.
2.1. Stratigraphy.
• Sequential/chron. deposition of
strata/layers/deposits → relative
chronology from early-late layers
• Aim at precise excavation →
isolate each deposit & its artifacts
• Dating artifacts, structures & remains
associated with each deposit.
• “Association” = contemporary items
in same deposit (ideally “sealed”).
• Artifacts can be no later/recent than
the deposit itself (earlier-contemporary
items → final sealing of deposit).
1885
Datable
pieces of
wood

2.1. Stratigraphy (continued).
• If one or more items provide
an absolute date → can date
the associated
a. items,
b. deposit
c. previous layers (relative)
d. following layers (relative)
• Need to date & reconstruct
the past actions associated
with the deposit:
E.g., refuse pit / midden heap
• Latest items date the “final”
deposit, but may still reflect
earlier activity.

3.1. Typological sequences.
Most human-made items reveal
a sense of their relative date.
E.g., Birmingham buildings are
“older,” “more recent,” “new”
Each artifact has specific attributes:
Material, shape, & decoration.
Artifacts displaying identical
attributes are one type.
a. Conceptually diff. periods produce
distinct styles in a given artifact type.
-An artifact type often changes over
time (typological sequence)
b. Stylistic changes are perceived as
gradual (vs. variance within a type)
-Principle = “like goes with like”
-Needs confirmation by stratified
sequence of artifacts. Early 20th cent.: Birmingham, AL

3.1. Typological sequences.
• Most human-made items reveal
a sense of their relative date.
E.g., Birmingham buildings are
“older,” “more recent,” “new”
• Each artifact has specific attributes:
Material, shape, & decoration.
• Artifacts displaying identical
attributes are one type.
a. Conceptually diff. periods produce
distinct styles in a given artifact type.
-An artifact type often changes over
time (typological sequence)
b. Stylistic changes are perceived as
gradual (vs. variance within a type)
-Principle = “like goes with like”
-Needs confirmation by stratified
sequence of artifacts.
Stylistic changes in dated bottles

3.1. Typological seq. cont.’
• In assessing a relatively new
or unknown artifact assemblage,
→ look at parallels for 1 or more
recognizable items from well-dated
typological sequences.
E.g. Regional pottery studies &
E.g., Trade items (external check).
• There are varying rates of change
for different artifact types:
E.g., a few years → decades →
centuries.
• Pottery forms > functional & stable
• Decoration changes more rapidly
(less functional & more stylistic).
Naqada II
Egyptian
pottery
dating to
3400-3200 BC
(dated by TL &
assoc. C14)
A Group pottery in Lower Nubia
Date ?

3.1. Typological seq. cont.’
• In assessing a relatively new
or unknown artifact assemblage,
→ look at parallels for 1 or more
recognizable items from well-dated
E.g. Regional pottery studies &
E.g., Trade items (external check).
• There are varying rates of change
for different artifact types:
E.g., a few years → decades →
centuries.
• Pottery forms > functional & stable
• Decoration changes more rapidly
(less functional & more stylistic).
“New Year’s”
bottle from
Dyn.26 Egypt
(664-525 BC)
= narrower
date-range.
NK: A3 → R4

3.2. Seriation:
• Two main typological
sequences of artifacts:
a. Controlled seriation
b. Frequency seriation
3.2.a. Contextual Seriation:
E.g., Late 1800s Petrie at
Diospolis Parva:
- Grouped like-assemblages
into associated clusters.
- Obtained several independent
groupings with some parallels
between otherwise diff. clusters
- Determined chron.-sequence
by handle degeneration in one
pot type.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/3dpetriemuseum/stories/excavation-and-rediscovery/petries-life

3.2.b. Frequency Seriation:
• Robinson & Brainerd 1951:
established a seq.-typology
for Mayan ceramics
→ concept of a rise, peak &
decline in popularity
(“battleship curves”)
- They argued for contemporary
rel. popularity across sites.
I.e., 18% at one site → 18% at
other sites.
- Much validity in SE America
Iraq
- BUT trade & distance may →
a decrease in %.

6.2. Using a historical
chronology:
• Correlating historical events with
artifact assemblages is easiest
when dated texts are found in
sealed contexts with artifacts.
E.g., Pottery typologies associated
with dated inscriptions (jars).
E.g., Foundation deposits
E.g., Royal name items
• Terminus post quem (dated after which):
-Dated items = TPQ in sealed strata
(i.e., deposit cannot predate item)
- Terminus ante quem (dated before which):
- Dated items = TAQ in sealed strata
(i.e., item dated to deposit [& later])
E.g., Mycenaean LH IIIA2 pottery at
Tell el-Amarna (1-period site) →app.
of pottery cannot post-date Amarna.
The cutting & filling of a modern
pit with a coin from AD 1910
FILL: cannot pre-date AD 1910.
(Underlying layer = cut by/before 1910)
The layer above the pit must
post-date AD 1910 (since the
pit is tied to 1910+ [or later])
i.e., Coin could be an antique.
E.g., coin from AD 1882

7.1.b. Tree-ring dating.
• 1930: A.E. Douglass U.S. SW
applied dendrochronology with
absolute dates for sites:
E.g., Mesa Verda; Pueblo Bonito
• Late 1930s → Europe
• 1960s long sequences calibrating
radiocarbon dates
Basis of method: (like Bar-code)
• Most trees yield 1 growth ring/year
• Rings get narrower over time
• Rings vary in thickness according
to climate: > rain > ring thickness
< rain < ring thickness
• Time-specific sequence of thickness
• Spans 100s → 1000s of years
• Smaller segments can be identified
within longer sequence → present.

Tree-ring Application:
• C14 Calibrated against master seq.
• Arizona California Bristlecone pine
may live 4,900 years
• SW USA: 6700 BC-present (pine)
• W. Ireland: 5300 BC-present (oak)
• W. Germany: 8500 BC-present (oak)
• Ancient timber can be compared
against master list of same species.
E.g., Pueblo Indian fir & pine houses:
dendrochronology even dated
room by room expansion from
AD 1270-1280s.

Tree-ring limited factors:
• Not applicable globally
• Applies to non-tropical areas with
distinct seasons (growth rings)
• Restricted to dating wood from spec
species with master sequences.
• Species need connection to pres.
• Need preserved wood from past
• Need sufficient sample to compare
• Tree ring date = date of cutting
• Need outermost ring (sapwood)
to obtain a regional sequence.
• Questions:
-How soon after cutting was the
lumber used?
-Was the lumber re-used?

8.2.a. C14 Radiocarbon dating:
• Most applicable dating system
for archaeology.
• Limited in accuracy and
specific time periods.
*Calibrated → higher precision
• Sampling errors, etc.,
usually account for “incorrect”
dates.

8.2.b. C14 history & basis of method.
• 1949 W. Libby obtained 1st C14 date
• Need organic samples-wood
-charcoal
-seeds
-plants
-bones
• Various counting errors, cosmic
radiation, etc. → uncertainty in
measurements (+/- std. deviation).
• Req. samples’ size = decreasing
a. 1950s-60s: 10-20 g. wood
b. 1970s-80s: 5 g pure carbon
c. Now: 5-10 mg samples
→ test precious items
• C14 dates expressed before 1950 AD
when listing years BP (before present)
• +/-100 yrs 68% → +/-200 yrs 95%
• Calibration with tree-rings → calendar
years.
Radiocarbon
dates calibrated
with tree-rings seq.

c.Calibration of radiocarbon dates:
• Now realized C14 in atmosphere
= NOT constant through time →
• Pre-1000 BC → increasing error
• Tree-ring dating corrects C14
dating back to 8500 BC
High precision C14 dates:
a. +/- 20 years at 95%
(More costly; a few labs)
b. Multiple dates from same sample
Sample contamination & protection:
• Poor selection (e.g., waterlogged)
• Collection/Post-coll. contamination
• Seal in 2 clean ziplock bags (ok!)
• Avoid contact with cardboard label
Date of C14 sample:
• Dates the sample, NOT the context
• Need several dates & good assoc.
• Use several labs (min. biases)
Collecting radiocarbon samples
Ideally storing in tin foil / aluminum foil

d. C14 applications & impact:
• Goal of C14 = to answer WHEN?
• Range = 50,000 BC → 1600 AD
E.g., charcoal from cave painting
Chauvet Cave 31,000 BP
BUT C14 over 30,000 BP = prob.
→ Need more than one Lab
• Main use is establishing date
sequence for cultures without a
written history & calendrical data.
• Provides a separate sequence
than Anc. Egyptian chron. for some
cultures: E.g., Levant; Aegean; …
• Authenticity:
• Determining whether artifacts are
real or fake:
E.g., Shroud of Turin, purported to
be shroud of Jesus, dated by
2 labs → 14th cent. AD

9.1. Trapped electron dating:
• Thermoluminescence (TL), optical,
& electron spin resonance dating
display indirect radioactive decay.
• Focus on radiation received by sample
(assuming annual dose = constant).
9.2.a. Thermoluminescence dating:
• TL advantages versus C14, it …
a. dates pottery (i.e., clay)
b. “dates” inorganic items (burnt flint)
earlier than C14 limit (50,000 BP)
9.2.b. Basis of method:
• Dating minerals set to “0” by 500 C/932 F
accidentally/intentionally (pottery; flints)
• Clay has some radioactive elements
obtained internally & externally.
• Gauge site soil’s radioactivity → accuracy
(1 yr. capsule; radiation counter; sample)
• Lab heats sample; measures light radiation

9.2.c. TL applications:
• Dating items lacking good
context or C14 dating options.
E.g., Nok culture, terracotta head
from Jemaa, Nigeria.
TL → 1520 +/- 260 AD
• Dating before C14 limit 50,000 BC
• Can date crystalline stone tools
heated to 500C/932F during
production or use.
E.g., Neanderthal Mousterian flint
tools in France
→ 70,000 – 40,000 BC
• Dating calcium carbonate deposits
associated with tools in caves.
9.2.d. limiting factors:
• +/- 10% precision in age
(gets worse the further back in
time an artifact dates).

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter Five:

5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.2. Classification of societies:
• E. Service adopted 4 types of
societies (useful; now modified):
Bands; tribes; chiefdoms; states.
2.2.a. Mobile hunter-gatherer groups:
• “Band”
• Usually less than 100
• Seasonal movement pursuing
wild crops & game.
• > all = related by blood or marriage
• They > lack designated leaders
• Status = essentially the same
• Seasonally occupied campsites
(temporary huts/long term seasonal)
• Other sites: kill & butchery; worksites
• Paleolithic 12,000 BP = 100% bands
• Terminology:
“Mobile hunter-gatherer groups”
versus “bands”

2.2. Classification of societies:
• E. Service adopted 4 types of
societies (useful; now modified)
(bands; tribes; chiefdoms; states)
2.2.a. Mobile hunter-gatherer groups:
• “Band”
• Usually less than 100
• Seasonal movement pursuing
wild crops & game.
• > all = related by blood or marriage
• They > lack designated leaders
• Status = essentially the same
• Seasonally occupied campsites
(temporary huts)
• Other sites: kill & butchery; worksites
• Paleolithic 12,000 BP = 100% bands
• Terminology:
“Mobile hunter-gatherer groups”
versus “bands”

2.2.b. Segmentary societies (tribes).
• Up to a few 100
• Cultivating plants
• Herding domesticated animals
• Usually = settled farmers
• Sometimes = nomadic pastoralists
(focused on herds)
• Contain several communities
linked by blood ties (kinship).
• Sometimes have a central “capital”
with appointed leaders & officials
• Small villages or homesteads
Isolated houses = dispersed pattern
Perm. villages = nucleated pattern
Adjoining houses = agglomerate “
• A “tribe” assumes a unified cultural
identity (which is not common)
• Segmentary society = relatively small
independent group, usually agricultural
(may unite to form a “tribe”)

2.2.c. Chiefdoms:
• Greater difference in rank
(social status)
• Different lineages with diff.
prestige (chief → tribesperson)
• Rank = affiliation with chief
• Usually craft specialists
• Surplus food & products paid
to chief
• Re-dispersal of produce
• Special central housing (for
the chief & his entourage)
• Size approx. 5,000 – 20,000
• Note: prominent ritual and
ceremonial center for chiefdom
a. within site
b. amongst sites Chief Paul Payakan (Kayapo, Brazil)

2.2.d. Early States:
• Led by a ruler who makes laws
enforced by military force.
• Less kin relationships
• Greater class stratification
• Agricultural & other labor
(= lower class)
• Craftsmen (middle class)
• Priests & nobility (upper class)
• Distinct ruler & palace
• Central administration & tax
• Cities (5000+) dominate society
• Settlement hierarchy
Archaeology:
• Seeks processes of change
• Complex societies reveal greater
craft specialization
• Food prod. intensifies →supply cities
• Greater disparity of wealth & status

2.5. Settlement Patterning:
• Need to classify survey data:
• Sites may include:
- Regional center
- Local center
- Nucleated village
- Dispersed village
- Hamlet
• Isolate social & political
sphere around centers.
• Different approaches exist:
(a) Central place theory is
limited
It promotes scaled site
rankings,
BUT secondary centers
may be larger.

2.5.a. Central Place Theory:
• W. Christaller 1930s:
• He promoted a regular spacing
of settlements in a “uniform
landscape.”
• Central towns/cities are
a. Equidistant
b. Surrounded by secondary
centers
c. Satellite communities are
smaller in-turn
• They display “hexagonal” layout
• Their nature is quite different
usually (i.e., theory vs. reality).
• BUT, central place theory is
a useful concept (Mesopotamia)

2.5.b. Site Hierarchy.
• Site size ranking is a useful
indicator.
• Normally sites increase in
number from the largest to
the smallest communities.
• Histograms enable comparisons
through space and time.
• Minimal differences appear
in bands (H+G)
• Major differences occur
within state societies
• Site hierarchy normally reflects
society.

2.5.b. Site Hierarchy.
• Site size ranking is a useful
indicator.
• Normally sites increase in
number from the largest to
the smallest communities.
• Histograms enable comparisons
through space and time.
• Minimal differences appear
in bands
• Major differences occur
within state societies
• Site hierarchy normally reflects
society.

3.2.c. Ethnoarchaeology:
Indirect approach:
• Examine current use & meanings
of objects, buildings, & system
in the study region to interpret
past processes.
• This technique = used in 19th-20th
cent. AD
• Revised in last 25 years
E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
to interpret Prehist. Mousterian society.
• Looked at use & abandonment of
bones & tools
• Seasonal movements
• Drop & toss zones around a hearth
(applying mechanisms to similar
past patterns)
• Isolate specific functions/actions
common to all hunter-gatherers.

E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
• Toss zone patterns →
infer number of persons at a hearth
• This allowed Binford to re-interpret
other archaeological reconstructions
(a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth
patterns).
• Other studies revealed that the
preserved material culture cannot
always distinguish individual
regional cultures.
• There are other factors …

4.1. Techniques of study for mobile
hunter-gatherer societies:
• H&G economy & politics are local
(= egalitarian societies)
4.2. Investigating activities at a site:
• Focus on determining different
activities at a H&G site:
E.g., Cave sites:
• Occupation debris = generally deep
• Seasonal activity over 1000s to
10s of 1000s of years
• Excavating each layer carefully
• 3-D recording of all artifact and
bone locations in strata.
• Sieving all soil

5.1. Techniques of study for
segmentary societies:
• Farmers generally live in
permanent, sedentary villages
• Examine housing
cemeteries
public areas
5.2. Investigating settlements
in sedentary societies:
• Ideally need to excavate fully
one period at a site.
• Conduct intense surface survey
• Sampling large excavation area
• 1st excavate structures &
determine area functions
• 2nd assess site catchment area
Tell el-Amarna workmen’s
Village (without hinterland).

5.1. Techniques of study for
segmentary societies:
• Farmers generally live in
permanent, sedentary villages
• Examine housing
cemeteries
public areas
5.2. Investigating settlements
in sedentary societies:
• Ideally need to excavate fully
one period at a site.
• Conduct intense surface survey
• Sampling large excavation area
• 1st excavate structures&
determine area functions
• 2nd assess site catchment area
Immediate hinterland of
Amarna’s workmen’s village

• Gender diff. - wealth
- status
• Age diff. - status
• Achieved status:
in egalitarian societies
• Ascribed status:
in birth right/lineages
• Burial wealth accompanying
a child often indicates
ascribed (earned) status.
• Need to analyze graves by
period, wealth, status, age,
gender.
E.g., S. Shennan study of
Branc in Slovakia
E.g., J. Tainter study 18
variables in Illinois
river valley (cult. spec.)

5.4.a. How much labor was
invested in the monuments?
• Can measure the scale of
the monument in labor hours
• Experimental archaeology
E.g., Early Neolithic England:
- 100,000 hours to build
causewayed enclosures.
- 250 persons in 6 weeks
→ within capabilities of tribal
segmented societies.
E.g., Late Neolithic great mound
at Silbury Hill:
- 18 million hours to build
- 2 years of labor
- 3000 persons
→ centralized chiefdom society
required.

P. Bourdieu’s concept: habitus
• Each person’s ideological framework
and cultural upbringing = expressed
via socialization/enculturation
(viewed through material culture).
• Each person = a product of their
environment, culture, etc. and
some artifacts reflect the “individual”
versus “culture”
• Buildings, rituals, culture, etc. shape
the habitus of community & individuals
• Culture shapes groups/individuals,
who in-turn maintain & shape culture.
- Prob. recognizing prestige & high status
detecting ethnicity within culture
- Studies in social inequality (poverty)
- Sensitive issues in excavation:
E.g., African-American burial ground 1750s

9. Investigating gender
& childhood:
• Gender studies in archaeology:
(a). Initially overlapping with feminist
archaeology, correcting male
bias (androcentrism) in research.
(b). Focusing on women’s roles in
past societies (correcting biases)
Biological sex versus gender:
• Osteological examination →
Sex = biological male & female.
• “Gender” = a social construct:
gender roles differ greatly per
society & individuals in time-space
• Gimbutas = criticized for stressing
Neolithic female links with nature
(mother goddess) in Prehist. Europe
& replacement by male warrior culture.

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter Six:

6. What Was the Environment? Environmental Archaeology.
2. Investigating Environments
on a Global Scale:
• First examine global climate
• Obtain evidence from sea bed
• → clues to local conditions
2.1. Evidence from the Oceans:
• Several cm/1000 years on sea bed
- patches of microfossils
- planktonic foraminifera shells
Sedimentary Cores:
• Track changes in diff. species:
• Organic molecules (fatty lipids)
adjust to temperature changes.
• 21 m core = 2 million years
Ice Cores:
• Oxygen isotopic composition →
reveals climatic fluctuations;
• Augment deep sea cores
• Antarctic 3.623 km deep 400,000 BP
COLD WARM
Sediment cores
from ocean bed
including dust :
→ past weather
& climate.

2. Investigating Environments
on a Global Scale:
• First examine global climate
• Obtain evidence from sea bed
• → clues to local conditions
2.1. Evidence from the Oceans:
• Several cm/1000 yrs on sea bed
- patches of microfossils
- planktonic foraminifera shells
Sedimentary Cores:
• Track changes in diff. species
• Organic molecules (fatty lipids)
adjust to temperature changes.
• 21 m core = 2 million years
Ice Cores:
• Oxygen isotopic composition →
reveals climatic fluctuations;
• Augment deep sea cores
• Antarctic 3.623 km deep 400,000 BP

2.1.b. Ancient coastlines:
• Past climate = mostly applicable
to land studies
• Climate has affected sea level
and hence ancient coastlines.
• Sea level has fluctuated
• Coastlines have eroded
• Coastlines grow (siltation)
• Land emerges:
- Isostatic uplift (i.e., ice = gone)
- Tectonic movement
• Glacial weight lowers continents
and absorbed water → ice
• Land bridges emerge:
- Asia → Alaska
- Europe → Britain
• Volcanic eruptions → new land
- Coastline at Pompeii (AD 79)
Submerged Greek port near Corinth

2.1.c. Tracing submerged
land surfaces:
• Submerged coastal plains
traced by echo-sounding
& related techniques:
E.g., 100 m depth &
sub-surface.
• Can reconstruct sequential
coastlines in relation to sites:
E.g., Prehistoric cave.
• May assess presence or
absence of sea shells
to extrapolate location of
coastlines in relation to
E.g., Prehistoric cave.
Greece: Franchthi Cave initially = coastal

3.4. Rivers:
• Rivers erode & deposit sediment,
changing landscapes and
associated human settlement
more rapidly.
• Rivers meander & change course
- Indus river = shallow & changes
course more frequently.
• Rivers deposit silt over flood plain
• Abandoned channels → oxbow
lakes.
• Can plot a river’s meander pattern
and obtain a sequence of
probable settlements.
3.5. Cave Sites:
• Limestone caves = abandoned
water channels.
• Special cases = human dwellings.

Soil micromorphology:
• Cultural deposits:
a. Primary cultural deposits:
occupation surface
accumulation
b. Secondary cult. deposits:
Modified primary deposit
displaced/change in use.
c. Tertiary cult. deposits:
Removed & reused from
context.
• Reconstruct ancient human
landscape: site → regional,
farming → deforestation.
• Contextual archaeology:
artifacts & the environment.
• Natural (in-situ) vs. human
settlement deposition:
- Cave deposits (thin layers)
Occupation surface: primary deposit
Luxor cachette
Luxor Museum: tertiary context

• Cultural deposits:
a. Primary cultural deposits:
occupation surface
accumulation
b. Secondary cult. deposits:
Modified primary deposit
displaced/change in use.
c. Tertiary cult. deposits:
Removed & reused from
context.
• Reconstruct ancient human
landscape: site → regional,
farming → deforestation.
• Contextual archaeology:
artifacts & the environment.
• Natural (in-situ) vs. human
settlement deposition:
- Cave deposits (thin layers)

• One can detect many forms
of human activities via
micromorphology.
- Settlement:
outdoor vs. indoor fires
cooking vs. eating areas
storage & traffic areas
• Usually need specialized
analysis
• Need standard designation of
soil color (Munsell color charts)
• Soil texture:
- Need different sieves
- Need hydrometer/sediograph
(% sand vs. silt)
- Thin section
→ Information about soil type,
land-use, erosion pattern,
deforestation, over-grazing, etc.

4.1. Reconstructing the plant
environment:
• Archaeologists reconstruct past
plant life by time period & place
• Specific plants:
- Imply animal & human life.
- Reflect soil & climate
- May reveal climate change
- Pollen analysis
4.2. Microbotanical remains:
4.2.a. Pollen analysis/Palynology
(developed in early 1900s)
• Provides a rough view of past
vegetation, especially trees
• Reveals wetter & drier conditions
• Post-glacial variance is rel. minor.

4.2.b. Fossil cuticles:
• Grass pollen grains are very hard
to distinguish
• BUT, cuticles enable plant
identification.
• Cuticle = hardy, exterior shell
of plant (= diagnostic)
• Also survives in charred fragments
from grass fires
• May identify subfamily or genus.
4.2.c. Phytoliths:
• Tiny parts of silica from plant cells
• Often found in hearths & ash layers
• Also found in pottery, plaster, lithics,
animal teeth, etc.
• Can be identified by genus/species
• Combined pollen & phytolith analysis
→ excellent environmental
reconstruction!

4.3. Macrobotanical remains:
• Larger plants yield information
on site environment, diet, etc.
a. Retrieval in the field:
• Screening & flotation
• Macrobotanical material
normally in sediment
• Other sources
b. Seeds & fruits:
• Normally identifiable by species
• Preserved by charring,
submersion, impression, etc.
c. Plant residues:
• Chemical analysis of container
fabric - Liquid soaked into it
- Part of temper (grass).

5.1. Reconstructing the animal
environment:
• Initially, various animal remains
were used to indicate past
environments: e.g., Mammoth
• The absence, presence, and/or
abundance of specific animal types
gives clues to past environment.
• Assessment requires a specialist
to consider the relation between
animals & the environment
• Also need to assess the context
of the animal remains:
i.e., Natural setting (death in-situ)
Carnivores (removal from habitat)
Human (removal from habitat)
→ Do they represent the time period?

Collecting techniques for microfaunal and macrofaunal remains.

6.1. Reconstructing the human
environment:
• All humans affect the environment
locally → regionally in diff. ways:
E.g., Domestication of fauna & flora
• Smallest unit = “site”
• Site selection factors vary:
- Fresh water availability
- Strategic location (height; visibility)
- Orientation (sun; shade; etc.)
• E.g., Different caves can be
analyzed:
- Temperature
- Shade (at different times)
- Sun (at different times)
- Winds, etc.
→ Analyze site exploitation factors
Farmland
near water
sources:
E.g., rivers,
or
E.g. areas of
sufficient
rainfall Celts placed fortified sites on hills (oppida)

6.1. Reconstructing the human
environment:
• All humans affect the environment
locally → regionally in diff. ways:
E.g., Domestication of fauna & flora
• Smallest unit = “site”
• Site selection factors vary:
- Fresh water availability
- Strategic location (height; visibility)
- Orientation (sun; shade; etc.)
• E.g., Different caves can be
analyzed:
- Temperature
- Shade (at different times)
- Sun (at different times)
- Winds, etc.
→ Analyze site exploitation factors
sun
wind

6.3. Human exploitation of
the wider environment:
6.3.a. Methods for investigating
land use:
• Assess soils from human
settlements:
- Exposed areas (strata in mound)
- Surface areas (lacking exp. strata)
- Site catchment analysis
(SCA: see below)
- Site exploitation territory analysis
(SETA: see below)
• Essentially investigate both the
site and its relationship to the
surrounding hinterland regarding
numerous factors: water, soils,
vegetation, rocks, minerals, metals,
animals, topography, trade, etc.
Map: Land
resources
& usage in
past-present

6.3. Human exploitation of
the wider environment:
6.3.a. Methods for investigating
land use:
• Assess soils from human
settlements:
- Exposed areas (strata in mound)
- Surface areas (lacking exp. strata)
- Site catchment analysis
(SCA: see below)
- Site exploitation territory analysis
(SETA: see below)
• Essentially investigate both the
site and its relationship to the
surrounding hinterland regarding
numerous factors: water, soils,
vegetation, rocks, minerals, metals,
animals, topography, trade, etc.

6.4. Human impact on island
environments:
• Humans have damaged the
environments of many islands
by bringing new plants & animals
- Initial Polynesian settlers over-
exploited their natural resources
→ major decrease in shell fish
and turtles
→ some resources extinguished
- Polynesians brought pigs, dogs,
fowl, and crop plants (+ rats?)
- They accidentally introduced
Polynesian rat, geckos, weeds, etc.
→ rats killed local birds & eggs
→ humans killed birds (meat; plumes)
→ Forest destroyed → grassland!
(changes in pollen, phytolith, land
snails, charcoal) = local impact!!!
Polynesian rat

INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Chapter Seven:

7. What Did They Eat? Subsistence and Diet.
1. Subsistence & diet:
• Subsistence = base requirement
of all peoples & societies
• Evidence from floral & faunal
remains (waste) from food prep.
• Human & animal remains yield
indirect clues to diet
• Meals: individual episodes
• Diet: long-term consumption
Meals:
-Textual-pictorial record,
- ethnoarchaeology,
- actual food remains
Diet:
a. Human bones:
- Isotopic analyses may reveal %
of marine & land-based foods.
- May show nutritional differences
between social classes.
Cambridgeshire:
Ca.1000-800 BC settlement
remains of a meal, etc.
Pompeii: Food murals
& physical remains

b. Animal bones (zooarchaeology):
- Identifying species.
c.Paleoethnobotany/archaeobotany:
- Study past consumption of plants, +
Determining what was actually eaten:
a. Traces in stomach content
b. Traces in fecal matter
c. Charred grain in oven?
d. Cut marks on bones–butchery?
e. Burned bones –cooking?
f. Residue in vessel –food container?
Assessing stage in food preparation:
a. Floral remains raw → cooked(?)
b. Bone remains raw → cooked(?)
Ask what is missing from evidence?
- What is the site’s function?
Short-/long-term; sporadic/seasonal
→ Diet may vary by site function.
Olive oil residue

2.6 Analysis of plant
residues on artifacts:
Microwear analysis:
of tool edges reveal use in cutting
meat, wood, & another material.
Presence of phytoliths
Reveal grain types being cut
Starch residues:
E.g., taro root vegetable 28,700 BP
Chemical analysis re: plant residue
Potassium iodide →
a. blue = starch grains
b. Yellow-brown = other plants
Microscope: detect
Starch grains (on milling stones):
= Species such as tubers
(manioc & arrowroot 5000 BC)

2.6 Analysis of plant
residues on artifacts:
Microwear analysis:
of tool edges reveal use in cutting
meat, wood, & another material.
Presence of phytoliths
Reveal grain types being cut
Starch residues:
E.g., taro root vegetable 28,700 BP
Chemical analysis re: plant residue
Potassium iodide →
a. blue = starch grains
b. Yellow-brown = other plants
Microscope: may detect
Starch grains (on milling stones):
= Species such as tubers
(manioc & arrowroot 5000 BC)
Tubers:

Chemical analysis of fats:
- Vessels: fatty acids, amino acids, +
- They are stable & preserve well.
→ reconstruct meals & recipes?
- Iranian Neolithic potsherds:
yield traces of mustard, olive oil,
seed oils, butter, etc.
- German Iron Age fort:
Amphorae → olive oil & wine
(jar with black residue = wheat flour)
- Egyptian containers:
Reveal malting process;
Desiccated bread → baking process
- Neolithic jar (Iran):
Tartaric acid = grapes = wine
(5400-5000 BC)
- Egyptian Tomb U-j at Abydos:
700 jars → yellow crusts = wine
(5,455 litres)
E.g., ingredients in cooking
Babylonian
stew recipes
ca. 1700 BC
Potsherd
with fat
residue

Chemical analysis of fats:
- Vessels: fatty acids, amino acids, +
- They = stable & preserve well.
→ reconstruct meals & recipes?
- Iranian Neolithic potsherds:
yield traces of mustard, olive oil,
seed oils, butter, etc.
- German Iron Age fort:
Amphorae → olive oil & wine
(jar with black residue = wheat flour)
- Egyptian containers:
Reveal malting process;
Desiccated bread → baking process
- Neolithic jar (Iran):
Tartaric acid = grapes = wine
(5400-5000 BC)
- Egyptian Tomb U-j at Abydos:
700 jars → yellow crusts = wine
(5,455 litres)

2.8 Meals & cookery:
• Can now estimate cooking temp.
for ancient plant remains using
electron spin resonance:
E.g., Lindow Man had eaten
food cooked for 30 minutes at
200 deg. C (392 F)
This food included barley chaff
Analysis revealed it was
unleavened bread/griddle cake
NOT porridge.

3.1. Information from
Animal resources:
• Now animal remains are being
examined beyond species ID,
climate, wild/domesticated, &
associated human lifestyle.
Zooarchaeology → subdiscipline
• Now asking HOW animal remains
reached a site: whether by
human or animal agency?
• Many other questions about:
- Subsistence
- Domestication
- Butchery
- Seasonality
• Animal used for other purposes:
E.g., clothing & tools (bone; horn)

3.1. Information from
Animal resources:
• Now animal remains are being
examined beyond species ID,
climate, wild/domesticated, &
associated human lifestyle.
Zooarchaeology → subdiscipline
• Now asking HOW animal remains
reached a site: whether by
human or animal agency?
• Many other questions about:
- Subsistence
- Domestication
- Butchery
- Seasonality
• Animals used for other purposes:
E.g., clothing & tools (bone; horn)

Evidence from bones:
• Cut marks = V-shaped &
smooth-sided
• Carnivore teeth = U-shaped groove
• Roots = Irregular marks
• Abrasive particles=Slight, shallow
grooves.
• Bunn & others argue they can detect
differences visually.
• Shipman, Potts & others assert
a. microscopes are necessary,
b. can detect different tool types
(slicing; scraping; chopping)
Using rubber impressions of surf.
c. Carnivores fought over prey first,
before humans scavenged it.

4.1. Investigating diet,
seasonality, & domestication
from animal remains:
• Faunal remains usually consist of
bone, teeth, antlers, shell, etc.
• The surviving bones often reflect
a fraction of an animal.
• There are innumerable ways in
which bone may be lost.
• Other foods leave no physical
remains: e.g., grubs, etc.
• Different cultures exploit varying
fauna: e.g., insects, rodents, etc.
• Usually eat herbivores; < carnivores;
Sometimes = cannibalism:
E.g., Neolithic cave 4000 BC:
6 people butchered
Marrow & flesh eaten?

4.2. Analyzing a macrofaunal
bone assemblage:
Procedure:
• Identify bones
• Tally bones:
a. Minimum number of individuals
= MNI
b. Number of identified specimens
= NISP
• Bone weight: varies by sex, age,
season, etc.
• Meat bearing bones (may be
misleading)
• How can one determine age, sex,
and seasonality at time of death?
• These factors are important to
know since they do seem to affect
the kill ratios.

• Determining animal’s age:
- Relative closure of skull sutures
- Fusion at ends of leg bones
- Tooth eruption stage
- Relative wear on teeth
•
• Archaeological applications:
- Age distribution at death in herd
(i.e., slaughter pattern)
- Hunting strategies (older prey)
- Dietary preferences (varies.)

Domesticated animal traits:
• Jaw → smaller
• Teeth → more closely packed
• Species size changes
• Skin/fleece changes (textiles)
• Changes in populations
(i.e., introduction to new area)
• Big shift in slaughter pattern
• Meat herd: > adolescent y-adult
• Dairy herd: > adult females
• Tools: plows, yokes, horse gear
• Puppy burial with human 12000 BP
• Cave art: horse head with bridle
• Deformities: from harness, etc.
• Disease: deficient diet
overstocking: parasitic
gastroenteritis
• DNA studies reveal the emergence
of separate areas of domestication.

• Jaw → smaller
gastroenteritis
Puppy burial
Prehistoric cave: horse & rider

• Jaw → smaller
gastroenteritis
Livestock overstocking …

4.5.d. Molluscs:
• Middens yield food remains, etc.
• Coastal middens:
a. Crustaceans
b. Echinoderms (urchins; starfish)
c. Mostly marine mollusc shells
• Terrestrial middens:
a. Snails & riverine molluscs
b. Fewer bones (shells survive)
• Calories from one deer carcass =
a. 52,267 oysters
b. 156,800 cockles
• Vast quantities of shells require
sampling strategies for analysis.
• 1 person needs 700 oysters/day
1400 cockles/day
• Need to calculate flesh weight/shell
• Changes in midden content over
time may = over-exploitation and
changes in diet.

5.1.b. Trails of blood:
• New controversial technique of
identifying species from blood
stains on tools.
• Oxygen-bearing molecules in
red blood cells differ between
species.
• Thomas Loy analyzed 104 tools
of chert, basalt, & obsidian in BC
from 6000 – 10,000 BP:
• He identified moose, caribou,
grizzly bear, sea lion, etc.
• Blood may survive as early as
100,000 years ago
• Further work is required!

5.1.d. Residues in vessels:
• 800 BC Austrian sherd:
→ overcooked milk
• Neolithic sherds (Germany):
→ milk fat & beef suet
• Lake Constance sherds:
→ fish fats
• Roman pottery:
→ butter & pork fat
• Early Dyn. Egyptian vessels:
→ Cheese, beer, wine, yeast
• Early Joman sherds (Japan):
→ dolphin fat (4000 BC)
• Late Paleolithic at Pirika:
→deer fat (scraper edges)
• 700 B Kg.Midas tomb (Turkey):
→ Sheep/goat meat, pulses, grape
wine, barley beer, & honey mead.
• Prehistoric midden (S. Africa):
→ sherds: marine animal (seal?)

6.1. Assessing diet from
Human remains:
•The stomachs & feces of past
human populations provide
definite proof for specific food
consumption.
• Human teeth also aid in
assessing past diet.
• Bone collagen reveals the
affects of long term diet.

6.3. Human teeth as
evidence for diet:
• Teeth survive very well
• Microscopic assessment of
abrasions
• Study modern known diets for
comparative purposes:
E.g., Modern Greenland Eskimo
Eating meat → vertical
striations on teeth.
E.g., Modern Melanesians
Eating mostly plants →
vertical & horizontal
striations
• Late Lower Paleolithic fossil teeth
→ more horizontal striations
→ fewer vertical striations
→ decrease in striation length
→ implies less meat in their diet.

Anth.106 Ppt. Lecture-10A Summary Power Point Coverage Of Chapters 1-7 In Renfrew Amp Bahn Textbook (By G. Mumford 2021)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Anth.106 Ppt. Lecture-10A Summary Power Point Coverage Of Chapters 1-7 In Renfrew Amp Bahn Textbook (By G. Mumford 2021)

Similar to Anth.106 Ppt. Lecture-10A Summary Power Point Coverage Of Chapters 1-7 In Renfrew Amp Bahn Textbook (By G. Mumford 2021) (20)

More from Joe Osborn

More from Joe Osborn (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Anth.106 Ppt. Lecture-10A Summary Power Point Coverage Of Chapters 1-7 In Renfrew Amp Bahn Textbook (By G. Mumford 2021)