This image is not of prehistoric flint blades. It is an example of a very convincing fabrication by an expert in the art of stone knapping. The craftsman is Professor Mark Moore from the archaeology department at Armidale University (UNE) while the composite image handiwork is my own.
Watch this space if you have an interest in archaeology. The project is a work in progress with new information added all the time.
"It is not what you look at that matters; it’s what you see.”
Henry David Thoreau
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Haven’t we all been asked this question? When I was a little boy, I remember my response was a fireman, a test pilot, a drummer.” I gave little, probably no thought to the possibility of becoming a scientist, an archaeologist or an anthropologist. Those things seemed to be something that only very special, super intelligent people did. Going to the moon would have been much more straightforward. My mother dreamed of me becoming a doctor, maybe because I liked to have my nose in her medical books. Mum had a leaning towards hypochondriasis.
These days you can put your mind into being whatever you like no matter what your background, providing you have a thirst for knowledge. Which, incidentally, I believe every child has. There is no such thing as a lazy child; there are only either motivated or unmotivated children. Once a child, or adult for that matter, becomes motivated nothing is stopping him or her.
So, if science, archaeology or anthropology sound attractive, why?
The Encyclopedia Britannica definition of archaeology (1988) is “The branch of learning concerned with the study of the material remains of man’s past.”
People often ask me “what are you studying?”. My answer is archaeology and paleoanthropology. The usual response is “I love archaeology; I watch those Tony Robinson’s shows on the television with interest. Where will you be digging”?
Of course, archaeology is primarily about digging things up then using all sorts of technology-based methods to put a manifestation date on them while also coming up with alternative inferences as to their original use, the people who created them, etc. But to what end?
The romantic notion that digging up the relics (artefacts) of the past can somehow pay one’s way in life is a very charming idea; however not a very practical one. When I first embarked on my journey to study science back in the early 1980s, I envisaged myself in a white laboratory coat busily, at my leisure, solving the problems of the universe. This idea is not a practical one when the bills are coming in. One has to pay the mortgage, put food on the table, get the kids through school, etc.
No matter how one is excited about their chosen field of study and eventual expertise, one has to demonstrate that their work and enthusiasm has value within the current and future society to which they are a participant, contributor.
Archaeology must inform us of how people and communities in the past benefitted, survived or failed to survive because of their actions relative to their contemporary environment.
Based on this essential element of archaeological endeavor, the science of archaeology becomes a valuable tool when considering our actions for future sustainability as a people sharing the planet or for that matter the universe. Understanding how our ancestors responded to climate change, for example, could well advise us today as to the benefits or indeed consequences of the future paradigm created by our actions. This small book aims at how the very static things we as archaeologists or for that matter ordinary folk dig up, can listen to what those things (artefacts) have to say about the people that made and used them.
“Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep your balance you must keep moving”
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
It is important firstly to accept that all human (Hominin) made things (i.e., artefacts), whether contemporary or linked to historical or prehistorical times, were made for a purpose. Objects, therefore, are always being associated with the cultural ideology in which they materialized. Today mobile phones, I-pads, computers, and other technologies are associated with a very recent, powerful communication system (including social networking). These technologies are enabling the creation of a huge paradigm shift on a global scale. Social networking technologies, it could be argued, are seriously changing the political nature of the world, e.g., there is a very apparent shift towards ultra-nationalism and populism. I do not see this tendency as something permanent. However, it could and probably will have serious consequences while it lasts. This strong link between human-made things and social, ideological paradigms is an entanglement, or more precisely, an entrapment. It is now challenging to imagine how humanity; especially contemporary young people could exist in its absence. A relatively recent example of entanglement is the Olympic torch marathon and the expectations of the elitist sport.
The 1936 Olympic games in Berlin saw the first modern-day use of the Olympic torch marathon, a symbolical entanglement that persists to some extent today. Between 1933-1945, under the assumption by those dedicated to the ideology of the then National Socialist Party (NSP), German people were superior to others. Propaganda was used by Hitler and his committed officials, to incite hatred. They carried this philosophy very strongly, that even archaeologists, historians, teachers, their students, and others in opposition had to make a choice, either join the party to continue their employment, position in society or lose all credibility and their livelihood. Those who could not escape this demand risked torture or death.
The introduction of the Olympic torch marathon under the NSP regime is an extremely relevant example of how ideology, symbolized by material things, can be corrupted and for how long and at what cost to societies? In this case, cultural society and the world can be affected.
Germany, to this day, has not recovered from this episode. Most academics cannot cite that era, resulting in a crisis of historical accountability.
The above example demonstrates an entanglement with corruption that has created a cultural entrapment reflected in activities that affect much of the world today. The running, expectations of the contemporary Olympic Games, much of what it represents today being from the 1936 games under the National Socialist regime (Hoberman 1995).
The point is, material things that are static in the archaeological assemblage represent dynamics from past human societies.
This example is a very relevant one however it is also an extremely complex one since the whole ideology of the era of The National Socialist Party regime, and the Olympic torch marathon is a linked expression of the cultural paradigm. Think of this. What if an archaeological research project a thousand year from now found an intact Olympic torch, initially in isolation. What would it represent given no other supporting evidence of its purpose or meaning relative to the society from which it materialized? The starting point would be to determine its age which is, given current technology, routine. The next step would be to look at other material things found in the same place, the same time frame. Another critical aid to solve the mystery would be to recognize what may be missing from the society at this item compared to other communities where the absence of a similar torch is conspicuously absent in the same time frame (e.g., Jewish literature). Eventually, a picture of the ideology begins to unfold.
Although we tend to think of the past suggesting, relationships between artefacts and activities, behaviors as cultural norms, this really is not the case as there really aren’t any cultural norms, in the past or now. Cultures and ideologies are dynamic, forever evolving. By listening to the conversation between artefacts and culture, we can recognize those dynamics.
The 1936 Olympic games in Berlin saw the first modern-day use of the Olympic torch marathon, a symbolical entanglement that persists to some extent today. Between 1933-1945, under the assumption by those dedicated to the ideology of the then National Socialist Party (NSP), German people were superior to others. Propaganda was used by Hitler and his committed officials, to incite hatred. They carried this philosophy very strongly, that even archaeologists, historians, teachers, their students, and others in opposition had to make a choice, either join the party to continue their employment, position in society or lose all credibility and their livelihood. Those who could not escape this demand risked torture or death.
The introduction of the Olympic torch marathon under the NSP regime is an extremely relevant example of how ideology, symbolized by material things, can be corrupted and for how long and at what cost to societies? In this case, cultural society and the world can be affected.
Germany, to this day, has not recovered from this episode. Most academics cannot cite that era, resulting in a crisis of historical accountability.
The above example demonstrates an entanglement with corruption that has created a cultural entrapment reflected in activities that affect much of the world today. The running, expectations of the contemporary Olympic Games, much of what it represents today being from the 1936 games under the National Socialist regime (Hoberman 1995).
The point is, material things that are static in the archaeological assemblage represent dynamics from past human societies.
This example is a very relevant one however it is also an extremely complex one since the whole ideology of the era of The National Socialist Party regime, and the Olympic torch marathon is a linked expression of the cultural paradigm. Think of this. What if an archaeological research project a thousand year from now found an intact Olympic torch, initially in isolation. What would it represent given no other supporting evidence of its purpose or meaning relative to the society from which it materialized? The starting point would be to determine its age which is, given current technology, routine. The next step would be to look at other material things found in the same place, the same time frame. Another critical aid to solve the mystery would be to recognize what may be missing from the society at this item compared to other communities where the absence of a similar torch is conspicuously absent in the same time frame (e.g., Jewish literature). Eventually, a picture of the ideology begins to unfold.
Although we tend to think of the past suggesting, relationships between artefacts and activities, behaviors as cultural norms, this really is not the case as there really aren’t any cultural norms, in the past or now. Cultures and ideologies are dynamic, forever evolving. By listening to the conversation between artefacts and culture, we can recognize those dynamics.
Index by chapters
Chapter 1: What do these artefacts tell us? Culture and cultural ideologies are not static but artefact assemblages are. The role of archaeology is to make sense of past through the static remains.
Chapter 2: Australian War burials from Pheasant Wood, Fromelles. Northern France after WW1
Archaeology is not only a tool for understanding the distant past, it can also be very useful for relatively recent event analysis.
Chapter 3: Tutankhamun; (Pronounced, Tut.anke.armoon)
As technology progresses so too does the accuracy of our understanding.
Chapter 4: My conversation with teeth
Some artefacts fair better over millennia than others.
Chapter 5a: Experimental archaeology
Methods we can apply today to better understand yesterday.
Chapter 5b: Experimental design
Examples of experiments designed by me.
Chapter 6: The Near-East "Neolithic Revolution" (farming; Plant agriculture including domestication).
There are some seemingly punctuated Hominin-cognition driven events that are revolutionary relative to the human journey.
Chapter 7: Fire domestication by hominins including humans
An achievement that may have been the cognition based saviour catalysing Hominin survival.
Chapter 1: What do these artefacts tell us? Culture and cultural ideologies are not static but artefact assemblages are. The role of archaeology is to make sense of past through the static remains.
Chapter 2: Australian War burials from Pheasant Wood, Fromelles. Northern France after WW1
Archaeology is not only a tool for understanding the distant past, it can also be very useful for relatively recent event analysis.
Chapter 3: Tutankhamun; (Pronounced, Tut.anke.armoon)
As technology progresses so too does the accuracy of our understanding.
Chapter 4: My conversation with teeth
Some artefacts fair better over millennia than others.
Chapter 5a: Experimental archaeology
Methods we can apply today to better understand yesterday.
Chapter 5b: Experimental design
Examples of experiments designed by me.
Chapter 6: The Near-East "Neolithic Revolution" (farming; Plant agriculture including domestication).
There are some seemingly punctuated Hominin-cognition driven events that are revolutionary relative to the human journey.
Chapter 7: Fire domestication by hominins including humans
An achievement that may have been the cognition based saviour catalysing Hominin survival.
Chapter 1
What do these artefacts tell us?
The artefacts that we, as archaeologists find are simply static items until we listen to what they can tell us. The consensus would be to say. It is not possible to suggest who made them or what they were used for because we were not there at the time. How can we even begin to infer anything about the origins or uses of these material things? Understanding is especially a challenge when the artefacts are evidenced to be many thousands if not millions of years old. So where do we start? I believe the best place to begin to understand the validation of archaeology in this process is to look at very recent archaeology firstly. An excellent and obvious starting point because it is in the historical and not prehistorical period. Therefore it gives us the benefit of written language. It also deals with items that we automatically recognize in most cases. This process is analogy based on contemporary example (I will deal with the analogy idea in more detail in a later chapter). We also know their production process, what they were and for what purpose they are used to this day. If we listen very carefully, we may also be able to shed light on other aspects of the human situation and ideological paradigm of the period in which the artefacts exhibited active association and meaning. An example of very recent archaeology is that carried out after a war-time event.
Archaeology is not necessarily confined to prehistory it can be a very effective tool for interpreting contemporary events and situations as the next section will suggest.
All battles leave an archaeological signature unique to the period they represent (i.e., weaponry, techniques used, etc.). This signature can give us a better understanding of socioeconomic, religious and political ideologies and agendas of those involved and the ideological climate. War has always had an economic, physical and psychological effect on humanity for all recorded history. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the archaeologist to obtain and share their valuable knowledge and resources to add to a better understanding that may help in decision making beneficial to humanities future. Battlefield archaeology is necessary to understand how conflicts were fought and to what end both from a physical and historical perspective. Quite often it is stated that only the victors write the history. Archaeologists can change this by offering objective analysis scrutinizing existing texts by utilizing physical evidence based on multidisciplinary archaeology. This kind of evidence is starting to produce a differing interpretation of the current documented record. With the ever improving and additional technologies that archaeologists can access, better analysis of the remains and artefacts can provide extensive evidence as to ethnicity, how the people lived before and during combat, how they fought, how they died, their treatment as soldiers, etc.
What do these artefacts tell us?
The artefacts that we, as archaeologists find are simply static items until we listen to what they can tell us. The consensus would be to say. It is not possible to suggest who made them or what they were used for because we were not there at the time. How can we even begin to infer anything about the origins or uses of these material things? Understanding is especially a challenge when the artefacts are evidenced to be many thousands if not millions of years old. So where do we start? I believe the best place to begin to understand the validation of archaeology in this process is to look at very recent archaeology firstly. An excellent and obvious starting point because it is in the historical and not prehistorical period. Therefore it gives us the benefit of written language. It also deals with items that we automatically recognize in most cases. This process is analogy based on contemporary example (I will deal with the analogy idea in more detail in a later chapter). We also know their production process, what they were and for what purpose they are used to this day. If we listen very carefully, we may also be able to shed light on other aspects of the human situation and ideological paradigm of the period in which the artefacts exhibited active association and meaning. An example of very recent archaeology is that carried out after a war-time event.
Archaeology is not necessarily confined to prehistory it can be a very effective tool for interpreting contemporary events and situations as the next section will suggest.
All battles leave an archaeological signature unique to the period they represent (i.e., weaponry, techniques used, etc.). This signature can give us a better understanding of socioeconomic, religious and political ideologies and agendas of those involved and the ideological climate. War has always had an economic, physical and psychological effect on humanity for all recorded history. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the archaeologist to obtain and share their valuable knowledge and resources to add to a better understanding that may help in decision making beneficial to humanities future. Battlefield archaeology is necessary to understand how conflicts were fought and to what end both from a physical and historical perspective. Quite often it is stated that only the victors write the history. Archaeologists can change this by offering objective analysis scrutinizing existing texts by utilizing physical evidence based on multidisciplinary archaeology. This kind of evidence is starting to produce a differing interpretation of the current documented record. With the ever improving and additional technologies that archaeologists can access, better analysis of the remains and artefacts can provide extensive evidence as to ethnicity, how the people lived before and during combat, how they fought, how they died, their treatment as soldiers, etc.
Chapter 2
Australian War burials from Pheasant Wood, Fromelles. Northern France after WW1
The battle of Fromelles (19th to 20th July 1916) was the bloodiest battle for Australian soldiers in military history.
5,533 Australian soldiers were either killed or wounded in less than 24 hours (Australian War Memorial London (2015).
Directly after the war, the dead were buried by the Germans, in a mass grave.
The mass burial site itself at Pheasant Wood, Fromelles was dug by the Germans after the battle of Fromelles in July 1916. The coalition war-graves units missed this burial site when they searched after the war. Many of the individuals not recovered were respectfully named at remembrance places nearby, many were not.
Because numbers of soldiers known to be involved in that battle did not correspond with a large number of men not accounted for, authorities assumed that the missing men must be too far buried in the ground to make a recovery feasible. However, aerial photographs (now held at the Imperial War Museum) taken after the war relate to the suspected mass burial of Australian and British soldiers behind German lines following the Battle. The burial sites turned out to be a series of eight pits adjacent to Pheasant’s Wood to the north of Fromelles.
Many years later, during the 1980s and 1990s a retired Australian school teacher, Lambis Englezos became curious as to an estimated 163 men that the initial investigation failed to take into account. Their names not recorded at any of the official burial or remembrance locations. Englezos’s curiosity eventually received some attention albeit several years later.
In 2008, a contract was awarded to Oxford Archaeology to carry out excavation and analysis of the eight First World War mass graves north east of Fromelles France. The project was the first large-scale archaeological war-dead recovery program for casualties of the First World War. The idea was to finally recover and rebury, with full honors in individual graves in a new Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) cemetery (Pheasant Wood) North West Fromelles.
The project was to be carried out in much the same way that a significant crime-scene forensic investigation would be, so included many specialized people on the team of around 30 individuals.
The planning for finalization of the project was designed to correspond with an official opening of the new cemetery scheduled for one year from the start of the project. The works finished in time with a total of 250 soldiers recovered, sampled for DNA and their associated artefacts analyzed within a secure compound adjacent to the recovery site. Out of the 250 soldiers, so far (mid-2013) 215 have been identified
Including 124 Australians, 2 British, 38 unknown and the rest undergoing further analysis.
So, given the available historical information how did the artefacts found talk to history in a way that improves our understanding of the battle, the ideological climate at the time?
There were 6,200 artefactss retrieved from the site. Found on and around the bodies. These items included parts of the military uniform, e.g., buttons, buckles, and a single boot. It seems that the Germans would have removed many boots as Australian and British footwear was, it seems, considered superior to that of the Germans. In amongst this relatively large stash, many objects that shed light on the day to day life of the soldiers, i.e., a fountain pen, a Bible, a French phrase book, a leather pouch with coins still inside, a rail ticket and more.
Australian War burials from Pheasant Wood, Fromelles. Northern France after WW1
The battle of Fromelles (19th to 20th July 1916) was the bloodiest battle for Australian soldiers in military history.
5,533 Australian soldiers were either killed or wounded in less than 24 hours (Australian War Memorial London (2015).
Directly after the war, the dead were buried by the Germans, in a mass grave.
The mass burial site itself at Pheasant Wood, Fromelles was dug by the Germans after the battle of Fromelles in July 1916. The coalition war-graves units missed this burial site when they searched after the war. Many of the individuals not recovered were respectfully named at remembrance places nearby, many were not.
Because numbers of soldiers known to be involved in that battle did not correspond with a large number of men not accounted for, authorities assumed that the missing men must be too far buried in the ground to make a recovery feasible. However, aerial photographs (now held at the Imperial War Museum) taken after the war relate to the suspected mass burial of Australian and British soldiers behind German lines following the Battle. The burial sites turned out to be a series of eight pits adjacent to Pheasant’s Wood to the north of Fromelles.
Many years later, during the 1980s and 1990s a retired Australian school teacher, Lambis Englezos became curious as to an estimated 163 men that the initial investigation failed to take into account. Their names not recorded at any of the official burial or remembrance locations. Englezos’s curiosity eventually received some attention albeit several years later.
In 2008, a contract was awarded to Oxford Archaeology to carry out excavation and analysis of the eight First World War mass graves north east of Fromelles France. The project was the first large-scale archaeological war-dead recovery program for casualties of the First World War. The idea was to finally recover and rebury, with full honors in individual graves in a new Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) cemetery (Pheasant Wood) North West Fromelles.
The project was to be carried out in much the same way that a significant crime-scene forensic investigation would be, so included many specialized people on the team of around 30 individuals.
The planning for finalization of the project was designed to correspond with an official opening of the new cemetery scheduled for one year from the start of the project. The works finished in time with a total of 250 soldiers recovered, sampled for DNA and their associated artefacts analyzed within a secure compound adjacent to the recovery site. Out of the 250 soldiers, so far (mid-2013) 215 have been identified
Including 124 Australians, 2 British, 38 unknown and the rest undergoing further analysis.
So, given the available historical information how did the artefacts found talk to history in a way that improves our understanding of the battle, the ideological climate at the time?
There were 6,200 artefactss retrieved from the site. Found on and around the bodies. These items included parts of the military uniform, e.g., buttons, buckles, and a single boot. It seems that the Germans would have removed many boots as Australian and British footwear was, it seems, considered superior to that of the Germans. In amongst this relatively large stash, many objects that shed light on the day to day life of the soldiers, i.e., a fountain pen, a Bible, a French phrase book, a leather pouch with coins still inside, a rail ticket and more.
|
Figure 1
Curved Australian shoulder flash, apparently a visible indicator that the wearer was an Australian soldier. |
|
Figure 2
An Anthony Horden & Sons brace’s button and an Australian Imperial Force uniform belt buckle, distinctly Australian soldier items. |
|
Figure 3
A train ticket, to Perth Western Australia from Fremantle. This item was found folded inside a gas mask, seemingly for safekeeping to be used once back in Australia. What a beautiful however sobering thought. |
|
Figure 4
Wooden pipe with Bakelite mouthpiece found well preserved, indicative of what small pleasure one may have found in such an otherwise terrible situation. |
|
Figure 5
Rosary beads found intact, an indication that hopes probably still existed, manifest in the belief in spirituality. Bibles were also found, maybe these were army issue items. |
Figure 5
Rosary beads found intact, an indication that hopes probably still existed, manifest in the belief in spirituality. Bibles were also found, maybe these were army issue items.
Rosary beads found intact, an indication that hopes probably still existed, manifest in the belief in spirituality. Bibles were also found, maybe these were army issue items.
|
Figure 6
This leather wallet containing Ottoman Empire (Turkish) coins plus a piece of ribbed trouser fabric found in the mass grave could be interpreted as items from past experience either in Egypt or Gallipoli during 1915 for instance which could be later backed up by further analysis as information becomes available as to the soldier's identity. |
|
Figure 7 Fountain pen. It is well known and documented that World War One soldiers were in constant communication with loved ones, so it is not surprising that such items were found on or in context with soldiers.
|
From a modern-day archaeological perspective, the evidence is valid. The identification and verification of the human remains have been carried out by comparison DNA analysis while well established historical records validate the analysis of artefacts.
All these items were found in context the soldier’s remains at the Pheasant Wood mass grave. Much can be interpreted from these items especially when analyzed with other available information, e.g., the fact that many letters from World War One soldiers survive, hence the carrying of fountain pens. The existence of several rosary beads is convincing evidence of reliance on spirituality. The train ticket is from Fremantle to Perth in Western Australia and was found folded in a gas mask. The ticket was a return ticket, maybe to be used once back in Australia.
Near a soldier’s body was a leather wallet containing Turkish coins from the old Ottoman Empire. Possible brought to France after serving in Egypt or Gallipoli in 1915. In context with several bodies, the researchers found smoking pipes.
Most of the pipes found were in or near breast pockets. The buttons, Buckles and shoulder sashes were a giveaway as to which country they came from so a starting point in recognition.
The success of this identification process would have brought joy to many descendants that were still unsure of what happened to their loved ones. One such example was Marjorie Whitford, aged 93 in 2010 who supplied her DNA. In March 2010 that helped in the identification of her Uncle, Private Harry Willis, of the 31st Australian Infantry Battalion who, as the information confirmed, had died at Fromelles on 19th July 1916 but was not found after the war until this excavation.
Harry Willis’s name is included now at VC Corner’s Memorial. Marjorie’s words to the media were “I am extremely happy that they have identified Harry. ‘We never forgot him,’ and it was so awfully hard to grow up without him”. “ I am Glad, so glad, they found him” Sydney Morning Herald (17 March 2010).
I point out, that although the artefacts found were in context with the soldiers as a group there cannot be a specific connection to a specific individual. Because the researchers do not know how the Germans carried out the relocation any specific individual context is speculation. Also, many of the identification markers and contextual indicators were taken by the Germans before the relocated mass burial.
German soldiers’ remains recovered in France:
In October 2010, during the excavation for a road-building project, in the region of Alsace in north-eastern France, the remains of 21 German soldiers from the Great War have been discovered in an underground shelter that has not been touched since the French attack that destroyed it during March 1918. The site, as at 2015 was under a thorough investigation led by French archaeologist Michael Landolt. It has been established that this was a major shelter comprising a 125-meter long tunnel, six meters underground. The operational height is around 1.8 meters and overall, big enough to shelter up to around 500 individuals. The site is objectively evidenced to have been equipped with telephone connections, heating electricity, sleeping arrangements and piping indicative of water supplies. The MNI indicates that 34 men from the 6th company of the ‘Reserve Infantries Regiment 942’ were killed in the attack. Thirteen bodies were removed from the shelter after the initial attack with some 21 believed to be trapped beneath the rubble. Archaeologists have uncovered the in context construction materials of the shelter all made from heavy timber.
|
Figure 8
Wall and floor timbers of the tunnel exposed during an archaeological dig near Alsace in north-eastern France clearly showing operational dimensions that the soldiers were bound by. |
|
Figure 9
This German helmet is an immediately visible identification artefact indicative of German soldier ownership. |
|
Figure 10
This partly preserved German newspaper from 1918, another indicator of the ethnicity of the deceased occupants. |
This site is unique in as much as it is the primary burial place of these soldiers and where they died. Smith (2015, p. 3) suggests that “Archaeologists believe the items have been so well-preserved because hardly any air, water or lights had penetrated the trench” In context with the bodies were found; weapons, helmets, pipes (as with the British and Australian site at Pheasant Wood), wallets, cigarette cases, pocketbooks, a rosary (also as per the Pheasant Wood location). There was also the skeleton of a goat, presumably as a fresh source of milk.
This find interestingly sheds light on the apparent equivalent human/artefact ideological paradigm as that of the Pheasant Wood burials suggesting an equivalent day to day needs of soldiers in a very similar situation. The way this find has been covered by the media reflexes how different cultures wish to remember the war and also how the deceased’s efforts are respected to a different extent. The discovery of the men found at Pheasant Wood got colossal media coverage with huge effort generated so as to respect the soldiers’ efforts and courage while this find has received only modest coverage in a few newspapers within Germany.
How do the artefacts of these two comparable assemblages talk to us? I suggest the reader keep this question in mind when I discuss analogy later. Hint: The two assemblages are of soldiers, all men of the Homo sapien species, coexisting in the same time frame. The activities and values are evidenced as the same. The uniforms are different.
This find interestingly sheds light on the apparent equivalent human/artefact ideological paradigm as that of the Pheasant Wood burials suggesting an equivalent day to day needs of soldiers in a very similar situation. The way this find has been covered by the media reflexes how different cultures wish to remember the war and also how the deceased’s efforts are respected to a different extent. The discovery of the men found at Pheasant Wood got colossal media coverage with huge effort generated so as to respect the soldiers’ efforts and courage while this find has received only modest coverage in a few newspapers within Germany.
How do the artefacts of these two comparable assemblages talk to us? I suggest the reader keep this question in mind when I discuss analogy later. Hint: The two assemblages are of soldiers, all men of the Homo sapien species, coexisting in the same time frame. The activities and values are evidenced as the same. The uniforms are different.
References for chapter 2
Cameron, D. and D. Donlon (2005). "A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the ANZAC Gallipoli Battlefields of 1915."
Duffy, M. (2009). Military Casualties of World War One. Retrieved from http://firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm
http://www.awmlondon.gov.au/battles/fromelles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099187/Bodies-21-German-soldiers-buried-alive-WW1-trench-perfectly-preserved-94-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9074336/German-soldiers-preserved-in-World-War-I-shelter-discovered-after-nearly-100-years.html
http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/fromelles/pheasant-wood/cemetery-construction.phpCached
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P., (2008) Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice. Thames & Hudson.
Smith, G. (2015, September 2). The ‘Pompeii’ of the Western Front: Archaeologists find the bodies of 21 tragic World War One German soldiers in perfectly preserved trenches where they were buried alive by an
Allied shell The Daily Mail Australia. Retrieved from
Stichelbaut, B. (2005). "The application of Great War aerial photography in battlefield archaeology: the example of Flanders." Journal of Conflict Archaeology 1(1): 235-243.
Cameron, D. and D. Donlon (2005). "A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the ANZAC Gallipoli Battlefields of 1915."
Duffy, M. (2009). Military Casualties of World War One. Retrieved from http://firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm
http://www.awmlondon.gov.au/battles/fromelles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099187/Bodies-21-German-soldiers-buried-alive-WW1-trench-perfectly-preserved-94-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9074336/German-soldiers-preserved-in-World-War-I-shelter-discovered-after-nearly-100-years.html
http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/fromelles/pheasant-wood/cemetery-construction.phpCached
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P., (2008) Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice. Thames & Hudson.
Smith, G. (2015, September 2). The ‘Pompeii’ of the Western Front: Archaeologists find the bodies of 21 tragic World War One German soldiers in perfectly preserved trenches where they were buried alive by an
Allied shell The Daily Mail Australia. Retrieved from
Stichelbaut, B. (2005). "The application of Great War aerial photography in battlefield archaeology: the example of Flanders." Journal of Conflict Archaeology 1(1): 235-243.
Chapter 3
Tutankhamun; (Pronounced, Tut.anke.armoon)
A study of how artefacts talk to us would seem incomplete if the author neglected to include the most famous archaeological find to date.
The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s burial place (see map, figure 11) is possibly seen as the most well-known archaeological discovery ever and along with Pompeii continues to promote a lot of interest to this day, especially given the advancements in technology enabling a clearer understanding of where the young pharaoh fitted in the scheme of things at the time.
|
Figure 11
The location of the discovery of Tutankhamun’s last resting place. |
Howard Carter is portrayed as a valid and qualified archaeologist who, prior to his discovery of Tutankhamun was employed as part of the British sponsored [archaeological survey of Egypt], (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1988, Vol 2., p. 906) where he produced drawings of the sculptures and inscriptions associated with the temple of Queen Hatshepsut (1893-99) of ancient Thebes. Later he became 'inspector general' of the Egyptian antiquities department where he was accredited with discovering the tombs of Hatshepsut and Thutmose IV in the 'valley of the Tombs in 1902 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1988, Vol 2., p. 906). Quite exceptional achievements given he was only around 17 years old when he first joined the British sponsored archaeological survey of Egypt. In 1907 Carter was sought out by a private antiquities collector, George Edward Stanhope Molyneux Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon. Howard Carter agreed to supervise excavations that the Earl of Carnarvon saw as requiring more expert know-how than he had as an amateur, not formally qualified archaeologist. Carter worked on projects for the Earl of Carnarvon up until work was interrupted by the First World War. Included in these projects was work that included the discoveries of 12th and 18th dynasty evidence that they published under both names in 1912 (Five Year Exploration at Thebes). After the war finished excavations continued funded by the Earl of Carnarvon and on Nov. 4th, 1922 Carter's team unearthed the grave of Tutankhamen in the 'Valley of the Kings.’ Carter opened the sepulcher chamber on Feb. 16-17, 1923.
The actual sarcophagus was discovered on Jan. 3, 1924 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1988, Vol 2., p. 878). ,
The actual sarcophagus was discovered on Jan. 3, 1924 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1988, Vol 2., p. 878). ,
|
Figure 12
Howard Carter is removing oils from Tutankhamun's coffin. (Photo by Mansell/Mansell/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images) |
The author suggests the reader pauses at this point to think about the circumstances surrounding the discovery. What did the artefact assemblage tell us about the period of Tutankhamen's passing based on the existing technology available during 1922? Like the previous examples of WW1 remains, the Tutankhamen discovery was a historic-time find. There was a written language (Egyptian hieroglyphics) account of who Tutankhamen was. The Rosetta Stone that was discovered in 1799, deciphered in September (27th) of 1822 by Jean-Francois Champollion added hugely to the understanding of the hieroglyphic writings that Howard Carter witnessed within the Tutankhamen chamber. Using this now relatively well-understood language together with the earlier writings of Sir Gaston Maspero in his work, The Tombs of Harmhabi, published in 1912, the history of the Tutankhamen was able to be primarily interpreted. Objective validation or rejection of the 1922 interpretation of the Tutankhamen paradigm would have to wait several more years.
The 1922 paradigm of known historical knowledge and contemporary technology enabled a conversation between the artefacts and the scholars of the time to be very robust indeed. And that conversation is fundamentally the same today. However, modern technology is sharpening the cultural, ideological perspective somewhat.
Radiocarbon dating would not be available for another thirty or so years; The process was pioneered in the 1950s-1960s by Willard F Libby who was an eminent Nobel Prize recipient for Chemistry. Around the same time, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was discovered and described by Nobel Prize winners Watson and Crick. Computed Tomography (CT scanning) was co-invented in 1972 by Godfrey Hounsfield of EMI laboratories England and Allan Cormack of Tufts University United States.
The Tutankhamun interpretation as at 1922
Although Tutankhamun's tomb was discovered and opened on 26th November 1922 his body was not discovered until 3rd of January 1924. Because of the arid conditions that had prevailed over the whole period of His mummification and burial his remains were in excellent condition for analysis. His height of ~180 cm at death was estimated from measurements of long bones, in particular, a femur. His age at death of 18-19 years was estimated using a range of physical characteristics similar to the way archaeologists would estimate initially today. There was already a substantial amount of knowledge available regarding his ancestry given the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone languages in 1822, e.g., he was born c 1342 BC, he reigned from 1336–1327 BC. Interpretation of existing hieroglyphics at the time suggested his father was Akhenaten his mother was Nefertiti (modern technology had since all but rejected this). In the tomb, alongside the central canoptic sarcophagus were two small anthropoid coffins containing the remains of very young infants. The relationship of these children was, at the time of discovery, not known. There was also a lock of hair found, not in a coffin. At the time the lock of hair was suggested as belonging to Tutankhamun’s grandmother Tiye, wife of Amenhotep 111. On closer inspection of the grave goods, it was suggested that Tutankhamun was probably hastily buried as many of the artefacts seemed to be more relative to other people. Within the mummification, bandages were found two daggers probably assumed associated with a known ritualistic significance. There were other items that gave hints as to how and why his life was cut short, e.g., walking sticks and weapons. The discovery did give historians, archaeologists, and others a more informed understanding of Egyptian pharaonic lineage and culture but it asked more questions than it gave answers at the time.
The Tutankhamun interpretation as at 2018
It has taken close to 100 years for new, more refined efforts and technologies to shine a light on the short life and seemingly unexpected death of Tutankhamun. There has been much speculative theorizing over most of the 100 years since the discovery as to the somewhat strange, androgynous appearance including gynecomastia displayed by the young king together with evidence of familial afflictions evident from other artefacts of the same era. Based on speculation only, several suggestions have been made. e.g., Marfan syndrome, Wilson-Turner X-linked mental retardation syndrome, Frohlich syndrome (adiposogenital dystrophy), Klinefelter syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, aromatase excess syndrome in conjunction with sagittal craniosynostosis syndrome and Antley-Bixler syndrome or a variant form of that syndrome. None of these speculations have been objectively validated to date.
“If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants”
Isaac Newton
Some scholars are suggesting Tutankhamun suffered from the inherited metabolic disorder, hypophosphatasia (HPP)___a disorder that affects, in many ways and especially, the muscular-skeletal system. Even in living patients this disorder is challenging to diagnose. The medical and archaeological evidence is ongoing to validate this claim based on the fact that the condition is directly related to defects on the ALPL gene. The ALPL gene instructs the construction of tissue-nonspecific-alkaline-phosphates (TNSALP) an enzyme actively catalyzing bone and teeth development. It also catalyzes developmental and functional processes in the liver and kidney. As far as bone and teeth development is concerned a defective ALPL gene, because its function is concerned with the robust mineralization necessary for robust and rigid bone and teeth development, will be evidenced by limb distortion, poor teeth development, and poor nutrition markers.
There are some that suggested the young king died from the result of an accident, e.g., falling from a horse or chariot gave the apparent visual evidence of Femur and head trauma together with foot necrosis and anatomic abnormalities.
In February 2010 The Journal of the American Medical Association, based on DNA analysis and CT scanning technology published empirically objective findings that the young pharaoh's death was the result of a combination of Kohler’s disease 11 and Malaria.
The initial investigation exploited the process using partial Y-chromosomal information on the amount of autosomal half-allele sharing and family trio likelihood so as to construct a 5 generation ancestry flowchart.
The flow chart produced from the DNA analysis generally corresponds with that well documented in ancient reliefs and paintings.
The 1922 paradigm of known historical knowledge and contemporary technology enabled a conversation between the artefacts and the scholars of the time to be very robust indeed. And that conversation is fundamentally the same today. However, modern technology is sharpening the cultural, ideological perspective somewhat.
Radiocarbon dating would not be available for another thirty or so years; The process was pioneered in the 1950s-1960s by Willard F Libby who was an eminent Nobel Prize recipient for Chemistry. Around the same time, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was discovered and described by Nobel Prize winners Watson and Crick. Computed Tomography (CT scanning) was co-invented in 1972 by Godfrey Hounsfield of EMI laboratories England and Allan Cormack of Tufts University United States.
The Tutankhamun interpretation as at 1922
Although Tutankhamun's tomb was discovered and opened on 26th November 1922 his body was not discovered until 3rd of January 1924. Because of the arid conditions that had prevailed over the whole period of His mummification and burial his remains were in excellent condition for analysis. His height of ~180 cm at death was estimated from measurements of long bones, in particular, a femur. His age at death of 18-19 years was estimated using a range of physical characteristics similar to the way archaeologists would estimate initially today. There was already a substantial amount of knowledge available regarding his ancestry given the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone languages in 1822, e.g., he was born c 1342 BC, he reigned from 1336–1327 BC. Interpretation of existing hieroglyphics at the time suggested his father was Akhenaten his mother was Nefertiti (modern technology had since all but rejected this). In the tomb, alongside the central canoptic sarcophagus were two small anthropoid coffins containing the remains of very young infants. The relationship of these children was, at the time of discovery, not known. There was also a lock of hair found, not in a coffin. At the time the lock of hair was suggested as belonging to Tutankhamun’s grandmother Tiye, wife of Amenhotep 111. On closer inspection of the grave goods, it was suggested that Tutankhamun was probably hastily buried as many of the artefacts seemed to be more relative to other people. Within the mummification, bandages were found two daggers probably assumed associated with a known ritualistic significance. There were other items that gave hints as to how and why his life was cut short, e.g., walking sticks and weapons. The discovery did give historians, archaeologists, and others a more informed understanding of Egyptian pharaonic lineage and culture but it asked more questions than it gave answers at the time.
The Tutankhamun interpretation as at 2018
It has taken close to 100 years for new, more refined efforts and technologies to shine a light on the short life and seemingly unexpected death of Tutankhamun. There has been much speculative theorizing over most of the 100 years since the discovery as to the somewhat strange, androgynous appearance including gynecomastia displayed by the young king together with evidence of familial afflictions evident from other artefacts of the same era. Based on speculation only, several suggestions have been made. e.g., Marfan syndrome, Wilson-Turner X-linked mental retardation syndrome, Frohlich syndrome (adiposogenital dystrophy), Klinefelter syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, aromatase excess syndrome in conjunction with sagittal craniosynostosis syndrome and Antley-Bixler syndrome or a variant form of that syndrome. None of these speculations have been objectively validated to date.
“If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants”
Isaac Newton
Some scholars are suggesting Tutankhamun suffered from the inherited metabolic disorder, hypophosphatasia (HPP)___a disorder that affects, in many ways and especially, the muscular-skeletal system. Even in living patients this disorder is challenging to diagnose. The medical and archaeological evidence is ongoing to validate this claim based on the fact that the condition is directly related to defects on the ALPL gene. The ALPL gene instructs the construction of tissue-nonspecific-alkaline-phosphates (TNSALP) an enzyme actively catalyzing bone and teeth development. It also catalyzes developmental and functional processes in the liver and kidney. As far as bone and teeth development is concerned a defective ALPL gene, because its function is concerned with the robust mineralization necessary for robust and rigid bone and teeth development, will be evidenced by limb distortion, poor teeth development, and poor nutrition markers.
There are some that suggested the young king died from the result of an accident, e.g., falling from a horse or chariot gave the apparent visual evidence of Femur and head trauma together with foot necrosis and anatomic abnormalities.
In February 2010 The Journal of the American Medical Association, based on DNA analysis and CT scanning technology published empirically objective findings that the young pharaoh's death was the result of a combination of Kohler’s disease 11 and Malaria.
The initial investigation exploited the process using partial Y-chromosomal information on the amount of autosomal half-allele sharing and family trio likelihood so as to construct a 5 generation ancestry flowchart.
The flow chart produced from the DNA analysis generally corresponds with that well documented in ancient reliefs and paintings.
|
Figure 13
The consanguinity is empirically evidenced as a first-degree brother and sister relationship. Genetically, the fetuses 1 and 2 are the daughters of Tutankhamun. However, the mother is not positively identified. The statistical data points to KV21A as the mother, however, the statistical analysis result is not significant enough to suggest that KV21A is in fact Ankhensenamun. |
Modern technologies have changed the conversation between artefacts and the story of Tutankhamun in several ways.
DNA findings
A DNA analysis has confirmed that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten while KV35YL (The “younger lady”) was his mother. Nefertiti however, was not his mother as previously thought. KV21A was Tutankhamun’s half-sister and the mother of his stillborn daughters KV621 and KV622. However KV21A is still not confirmed as Ankhensenmamun, Tutankhamun’s wife according to well documented ancient reliefs and paintings from the era.
|
Figure 14
This picture from the lid of a box found in Tutankhamun’s tomb shows Ankhesenamun offering flowers to her half-brother and probable husband. Photo source: Wikipedia |
I mention in passing here that although modernity frowns upon incest for reasons of contemporary religion, culture and probable genetic inheritance issues. This was not the case in ancient Egypt or for that matter other ancient cultures where it was essential to ensure the perpetuation of a royal lineage that reflected the relatedness to the gods. Our contemporary taboo regarding incest was perfectly acceptable to ancient Egypt so as to maintain the sacred integrity of the bloodline.
Medical analysis; Gynecomastia or Marfan syndrome
Although gynecomastia or Marfan syndrome is suspected as contributing to the apparent feminized features exhibited in the paintings and reliefs from the time, especially that of Tutankhamun’s father Akhenaten and to a lesser degree in the art of Tutankhamun himself. This cannot be established from the mummies, because his father Akhenaten is a mummified skeleton while Tutankhamun’s remains are absent of the frontal part of the chest wall and most of the pelvic bone. Also, Tutankhamun’s penis, although not attached, is well developed and DNA evidenced to belong to him.
The pelvic bone of Akhenaten is intact and shows no sign of feminine traits after reconstruction and analysis using computer tomographic technology.
Dolichocephaly (head is longer than the width) is a visible indicator of Marfan Syndrome. The cephalic index (Head width/Head length) for Tutankhamun, the cephalic index is 83.9. Akhenaten has an index of 81.0. Both of these values are indicative of brachycephaly, not dolichocephaly, therefore, cannot be used to validate Marfan syndrome; Marfan syndrome diagnosis is evaluated using a combination of associated clinical features. Therefore, this condition can only be hypothesized at this point in time. I point out here however that Yuya’s (Tutankhamun’s great-grandfather) cephalic index is 70.3, which is dolichocephalic; adding to the possibility of Marfan syndrome's involvement in the apparent feminine features of the artistic depictions of the era.
|
Figure 15
This image describes the cephalic index values and their relative classifications. Courtesy of http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512013000300025 |
Royal mummy pathology
Examination of Tutankhamun’s skull and trunk revealed no out-of-the-ordinary information according to the American Medical Association (2010). The feet, however, exhibited quite novel characteristics compared to that which is considered anatomically normal (Figure 15). An apparent low arch of (132o Rocher angle) on the right foot compared with a slightly higher than average arch of (120o Rocher angle) on the left foot is empirically indicative of flat-footedness for the the right foot (Figure 16A) while the inward rotation of the left foot indicative of ‘clubfoot’ (Figure 16B).
|
Figure 16
Normal Foot Anatomy, Courtesy of American Medical Association (2010). Additional text by the author. |
|
Figure 17
Tutankhamun’s feet CT reconstruction. the A. sagittal CT reconstruction, Rocher angle indicative of ‘Flat right foot.’ B. Axial reconstruction is exhibiting supine and inward rotation of the left foot indicative of ‘clubfoot.’ Images are Courtesy of the American Medical Association (2010). Additional text by the author. |
|
Figure 18
Superior (above) view of left foot courtesy of public internet access https://www.earthslab.com/anatomy/metatarsal-bones/ |
Figure 19
This image compares the under-side CT scans of Tutankhamun’s feet. A. indicates no apparent abnormalities of the right foot. However, B. (left foot) indicates bone necrosis and anterior displacement of the second toe (B1). A widening of the second metaphalangial joint space (B2) and deformation of the third metatarsal (B3). Image courtesy of the American Medical Association (2010). Additional text by the author.
This image compares the under-side CT scans of Tutankhamun’s feet. A. indicates no apparent abnormalities of the right foot. However, B. (left foot) indicates bone necrosis and anterior displacement of the second toe (B1). A widening of the second metaphalangial joint space (B2) and deformation of the third metatarsal (B3). Image courtesy of the American Medical Association (2010). Additional text by the author.
Figure 20
More CT Images of Tutankhamun’s left and right feet indicative apparent abnormalities. There are no apparent abnormalities apparent for the right foot (A and B) however the left foot CT images are indicative of severe problems. There is evident necrosis including bone and soft tissue loss (A1). The middle phalanx is missing from the second toe (A2). There is evidence of necrosis on the head of the second metatarsal (B1) while the middle phalanx is missing from the second toe (B2). Also, the distal phalange of the second toe is subluxated (incomplete) (B3). Image courtesy of the American Medical Association (2010). Additional text by the author.
More CT Images of Tutankhamun’s left and right feet indicative apparent abnormalities. There are no apparent abnormalities apparent for the right foot (A and B) however the left foot CT images are indicative of severe problems. There is evident necrosis including bone and soft tissue loss (A1). The middle phalanx is missing from the second toe (A2). There is evidence of necrosis on the head of the second metatarsal (B1) while the middle phalanx is missing from the second toe (B2). Also, the distal phalange of the second toe is subluxated (incomplete) (B3). Image courtesy of the American Medical Association (2010). Additional text by the author.
As the contemporary technology shows; there are apparent abnormalities that Tutankhamun’s remains now tell us.
Definite evidence of oligodactyly, i.e., missing phalanx from second toe of the left foot (Figure 19, B2). Necrosis and missing bone and tissue from the second metatarsal bone of the left foot (Figure 19, B1). Incomplete distal phalange of the second toe on the left foot (Figure 19, B3). bone necrosis and anterior displacement of the second toe (Figure 18, B1). A widening of the of the second metaphalangial joint space (Figure 18, B2) and deformation of the third metatarsal (Figure 18, B3).
The abnormalities now validated suggest that Tutankhamun did indeed suffer from Kohler disease 11, Freiberg-Kohler syndrome as validated by the juvenile aseptic bone necrosis of the left foot second and third metatarsals. The evident necrosis was still ongoing at the time of his death evidenced by the widening of the metatarsal-phalangeal joint space (figure 18, B2). Osteoarthritis and osteomyelitis were possibly also plaguing the young king as evidenced by second metatarsal phalangial articulation abnormality. I suggest the abnormalities of the left foot contributed to the flat-footedness evidenced for the right foot, given that the right foot shared an unproportionate component of the load for mobility.
To conclude: When Howard Carter discovered the tomb, he found ~130 walking canes in various condition. Some were fully intact while others exhibited in various levels of damage and/or wear. The walking canes suggest Tutankhamun suffered for quite an extended period of mobility compromisation prior to his death. There are also other relief and artwork that exhibit visual evidence of physical impairment. i.e., where he is portrayed seated during activities such as hunting; usually, an activity where one would be standing. For close to 100 years the story of Tutankhamun has been virtually unchanged until quite recently as more and more information has become available based on the exponential increase in technological achievement.
Definite evidence of oligodactyly, i.e., missing phalanx from second toe of the left foot (Figure 19, B2). Necrosis and missing bone and tissue from the second metatarsal bone of the left foot (Figure 19, B1). Incomplete distal phalange of the second toe on the left foot (Figure 19, B3). bone necrosis and anterior displacement of the second toe (Figure 18, B1). A widening of the of the second metaphalangial joint space (Figure 18, B2) and deformation of the third metatarsal (Figure 18, B3).
The abnormalities now validated suggest that Tutankhamun did indeed suffer from Kohler disease 11, Freiberg-Kohler syndrome as validated by the juvenile aseptic bone necrosis of the left foot second and third metatarsals. The evident necrosis was still ongoing at the time of his death evidenced by the widening of the metatarsal-phalangeal joint space (figure 18, B2). Osteoarthritis and osteomyelitis were possibly also plaguing the young king as evidenced by second metatarsal phalangial articulation abnormality. I suggest the abnormalities of the left foot contributed to the flat-footedness evidenced for the right foot, given that the right foot shared an unproportionate component of the load for mobility.
To conclude: When Howard Carter discovered the tomb, he found ~130 walking canes in various condition. Some were fully intact while others exhibited in various levels of damage and/or wear. The walking canes suggest Tutankhamun suffered for quite an extended period of mobility compromisation prior to his death. There are also other relief and artwork that exhibit visual evidence of physical impairment. i.e., where he is portrayed seated during activities such as hunting; usually, an activity where one would be standing. For close to 100 years the story of Tutankhamun has been virtually unchanged until quite recently as more and more information has become available based on the exponential increase in technological achievement.
Chapter 4:
My conversation with teeth
My conversation with teeth
Figure 21
Gigantopithecus molar compared to contemporary human molar. Gigantopithecus first existed from between 6-9 mya, going extinct around 100 kya. Notice how closely the dimensional ratio-means compare to that of contemporary humans, i.e., C of V (coefficient of variance) = ~5%. Image modified from Smith (2018).
Gigantopithecus molar compared to contemporary human molar. Gigantopithecus first existed from between 6-9 mya, going extinct around 100 kya. Notice how closely the dimensional ratio-means compare to that of contemporary humans, i.e., C of V (coefficient of variance) = ~5%. Image modified from Smith (2018).
So, how does this image talk to us?
What are the distinct aspects of the conversation?
What are the distinct aspects of the conversation?
- Image (B) is of a contemporary Homo sapien (Human) lower molar while image (A) is the lower molar of a now extinct relative that existed in Asia up until around 100,000 years ago.
- Image (A) is on average, ~2.17 times the size of the image (B).
- Each image relates to a different paradigm of existence, i.e., image (B) we know a great deal about what species and probably whom it belonged to. What it was used for — the environment in which it grew. The age of the individual at the time it was extracted. Whether the individual was deceased at the time or not. The gender of the individual.
Where do we go from here for a better conversation that enables the tooth (A) to speak to us?
|
Figure 22 This histogram/curve is indicative of the height distribution of contemporary Homo sapiens (Humans). Image from public access internet. |
“μ is the mean,σ is the standard deviation of the population, π is approximately 3.1415 and e is approximately 2.17. The x would be a single value in the graph. For example, for an adult male of 72 inches is an x. Plugging in the values gets you a value of .088016, which is just one small sliver of the bell curve on the right side just past the center.” Courtesy of http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal
|
|
Figure 23
Robert Wadlow is evidenced to have been the tallest ever human. He reached 2,451 mm. He died young at 22 years at 1.30 a.m. on 15th July 1940. Image courtesy of http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/hall-of-fame/robert-wadlow-tallest-man-ever |
According to current height data as illustrated in figure 21 the maximum height of humans today is ~2,159 mm (85 inches). This height is represented by less than 1% of the world's population. Robert Wadlow was 13.52% taller than this while Gigantopithecus is extrapolated to be at least 2.17 times the height of the smallest humans today or 23.70% taller than the tallest ever human, Robert Wadlow, depending on where the sample human molar (figure 20) is situated on the bell curve. To analyze this more objectively It is necessary to address the question with current empirical data.
|
Figure 24
This image represents human lower molar (A) number 17 with a CL vertical of 6.92 mm, gigantopithecus lower molar(B) number 17 with a CL of 10.88 mm. Image modified from Smith (2018). |
|
Figure 25
This chart is created by the author from data from Chandrappa et al., (2017). |
According to Chandrappa et al., (2017), one can multiply the mean value of CL17 by 244.92 to establish the height of a Human female or 265.75 for the male height.
This empirically established benchmark chart (figure 24) suggests The human tooth is either that of a female of 1694.84 mm (5 .56 feet) or a male of 1838.99 mm (6.03 feet).
Given that the coefficient of variation (C of V) between the gigantopithecus and the human is validated at ~5% then it can be assumed that using the Chandrappa et al., (2017) formula one can extrapolate a height for gigantopithecus at, Female = 2,664.73 mm (8.74 feet) or a male = 2891.36 mm (9.49 feet), 18% taller than Robert Wadlow, the tallest human as far as we know.
As the reader can see, a single tooth can speak to us in surprising ways. The gigantopithecus tooth of at least 100,000 years old is telling us that it is very similar to the equivalent tooth of a contemporary human as evidenced by the closely correlated dimensional ratios of figure 20. This suggests either a close genetic relationship or an incredibly, almost unbelievable, parallel evolutionary journey. Because of the work of Chandrappa et al., (2017). I was able to quite validly suggest the probable height of the individual that the tooth belonged to.
There are, due to advances in technology, many other ways of adding to the conversation between contemporary individuals and the teeth found from prehistory. i.e., Smith (2018), in her book The Tales Teeth Tell has been able to demonstrate methods of teeth interpretation using Electron and extreme magnification photomicroscopy and Synchrotron imaging so as to enhance the conversation much further than previously possible.
Test interpretation
For those folk familiar with the t-test for two independent samples / Two-tailed test:
Alternative hypotheses
H0: The difference between the means is equal to 0.
Ha: The difference between the means is different from 0.
As the computed p-value of 0.403 is higher than the significance level alpha = 0.05, one cannot reject the null hypothesis H0.
This is the result when considering all of the dimensional ratios. Basically, what the two-tailed ‘t’ test result tells us is that statistically, although one molar is much bigger (Gigantopithecus) than the other (contemporary Human), their dimensional ratios are the same. This statistical analysis result makes the conversation very interesting, i.e., why are the teeth so different in actual size but very much the same when it comes to their dimensional-ratio relationship with each other?
This empirically established benchmark chart (figure 24) suggests The human tooth is either that of a female of 1694.84 mm (5 .56 feet) or a male of 1838.99 mm (6.03 feet).
Given that the coefficient of variation (C of V) between the gigantopithecus and the human is validated at ~5% then it can be assumed that using the Chandrappa et al., (2017) formula one can extrapolate a height for gigantopithecus at, Female = 2,664.73 mm (8.74 feet) or a male = 2891.36 mm (9.49 feet), 18% taller than Robert Wadlow, the tallest human as far as we know.
As the reader can see, a single tooth can speak to us in surprising ways. The gigantopithecus tooth of at least 100,000 years old is telling us that it is very similar to the equivalent tooth of a contemporary human as evidenced by the closely correlated dimensional ratios of figure 20. This suggests either a close genetic relationship or an incredibly, almost unbelievable, parallel evolutionary journey. Because of the work of Chandrappa et al., (2017). I was able to quite validly suggest the probable height of the individual that the tooth belonged to.
There are, due to advances in technology, many other ways of adding to the conversation between contemporary individuals and the teeth found from prehistory. i.e., Smith (2018), in her book The Tales Teeth Tell has been able to demonstrate methods of teeth interpretation using Electron and extreme magnification photomicroscopy and Synchrotron imaging so as to enhance the conversation much further than previously possible.
Test interpretation
For those folk familiar with the t-test for two independent samples / Two-tailed test:
Alternative hypotheses
H0: The difference between the means is equal to 0.
Ha: The difference between the means is different from 0.
As the computed p-value of 0.403 is higher than the significance level alpha = 0.05, one cannot reject the null hypothesis H0.
This is the result when considering all of the dimensional ratios. Basically, what the two-tailed ‘t’ test result tells us is that statistically, although one molar is much bigger (Gigantopithecus) than the other (contemporary Human), their dimensional ratios are the same. This statistical analysis result makes the conversation very interesting, i.e., why are the teeth so different in actual size but very much the same when it comes to their dimensional-ratio relationship with each other?
|
Figure 26
This is the Excel scatter plot of the 16-dimensional ratios used to analyze the closeness of fit between the Gigantopithecus and contemporary-Human C17 molar. Excel plot by me. |
Although the peer-reviewed literature does include a genus of large now extinct ape called Gigantopithecus from Southern and Eastern Asia during Pleistocene times, the evidence is very scanty. Gigantopithecus is only interpreted from a few teeth and mandible artefacts. Not even a skull has been found let alone any postcranial evidence. Because of this “scanty” evidence, any validation of where the so-called Gigantopithecus fits in the hominin journey is speculative at the moment.
However, given our knowledge of Homo sapien height relatedness to tooth size, it is fair to say that Gigantopithecus was, in fact, a primate not necessarily part of our ancestral journey, but possibly an example of parallel evolution. Future additional evidence may suggest otherwise.
However, given our knowledge of Homo sapien height relatedness to tooth size, it is fair to say that Gigantopithecus was, in fact, a primate not necessarily part of our ancestral journey, but possibly an example of parallel evolution. Future additional evidence may suggest otherwise.
References
Smith, T.M., 2018. The Tales Teeth Tell: Development, Evolution, Behavior. MIT Press.
http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/hall-of-fame/robert-wadlow-tallest-man-ever
Chandrappa, R., Kamath, V.V., Srikanth, N. and Sharada, C., 2017. Comparative evaluation of vertical crown length of deciduous and permanent teeth as a predictor of an individual height by linear stepwise regression analysis. International Journal of Forensic Odontology, 2(1), p.2.
Smith, T.M., 2018. The Tales Teeth Tell: Development, Evolution, Behavior. MIT Press.
http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/hall-of-fame/robert-wadlow-tallest-man-ever
Chandrappa, R., Kamath, V.V., Srikanth, N. and Sharada, C., 2017. Comparative evaluation of vertical crown length of deciduous and permanent teeth as a predictor of an individual height by linear stepwise regression analysis. International Journal of Forensic Odontology, 2(1), p.2.
Chapter 5a
Experimental archaeology
“Men have become the tools of their tools”
Henry David Thoreau
Experimental archaeology
“Men have become the tools of their tools”
Henry David Thoreau
Contemporary Homo sapiens use what we term modelling to create sustainable economies, business plans, architectural structures and material items such as robots for industry, cars, and buildings. The list is endless. For this purpose, we use a cognitional attribute that enables our minds to visualise the materialization of the end product long before we construct it. For example, when we repair or modify an everyday machine, e.g., a lawn mower or car, our mind sees the finished product as the goal. When we decide to renovate our houses, our mind has quite a clear picture of the end result. I designed, drew and built my current home that now looks and functions as my mind perceived it would long before I put my plans into action. When Leonardo Da Vinci set out to paint the Mona Lisa, he had a reasonably accurate pr-conception of the end result before he put paint to canvas. When Jørn Utzon proceeded to design the Sydney Opera House (NSW Australia) , he could foresee the finished product that is now an existential masterpiece of construction and cultural expression. We have abundant material evidence to hand that suggests our process of modelling works very well in our contemporary world. Of course, this modelling is probably never 100% successful, e.g., when Jørn Utzon set out to design the Sydney Opera house he did not fully visualise that the plans would need to be drawn-up something like 7 times before his mental conception could materialise. When I did the first drawing of my current house I did not perceive that I would need to modify the drawings for the process to develop into a tangible, and sustainable place of occupation and protection from the elements. The main reason, I suggest, why the plan is never 100% accurate is because we can never wholly address all of the variables within the paradigm of the perceptive process.
So how can we use this proven cognitional process to improve on the interpretation and conversation we have with the archaeological artefact assemblages from years gone by, especially those that were either made by our ancestors or were altered by interaction with our ancestors or other closely related species of hominins?
So how can we use this proven cognitional process to improve on the interpretation and conversation we have with the archaeological artefact assemblages from years gone by, especially those that were either made by our ancestors or were altered by interaction with our ancestors or other closely related species of hominins?
|
Figure 27
The knife in the above image, also as the introductory image for the site; I fabricated from only natural products and technologies. It comprises a slate blade, Willow handle, Kangaroo sinew and rawhide as shaft binding secured by animal glue that necessitated the use of fire. The knife took around 16 hours to fabricate. |
Archaeology is is most cases, the pre-history study of what it means to be human in terms of the environment and the period in which hominins existed. Culture is not static. However the remains of culture (archaeological assemblages) are static. These remains need to reflect somehow, the dynamics of their association with Hominins at the time of their manifestation and use. We need to be able to give life to the static artefacts or in fact interpret the absence of static artefacts in the archaeological record in some cases. Experimental archaeology is one of the ways this can be achieved. In this chapter, I look at data from the actual experimental research that can enable the process between stone tools and bone markings compared to the contemporary experimental analogy. This process enables archaeologists/anthropologists a vision into the part humans may have been active in the past. I investigate how valid the idea of experimental archaeology is regarding understanding the past. Because bones, as far as humans are concerned, go hand in hand with stone and/or metal tools both in prehistory and today (butchering) it is essential to look at both to enable enhancement of the conversation that artefacts present about human prehistory, cognitive and behavioral association with their environment.
Although it is possible that some primates, i.e., Hominids may have been using random pieces of stone as implements or tools to more efficiently affect tasks for several million years, e.g., Callaway (2015) suggests as far back as 3.6 MYBP … the first actual evidence of tool making based on early-Hominin cognition goes back to Africa at least 2.60 MYBP. This tool making was carried out by our ancestors in a place now known as Gona, Ethiopia (Semaw et al., 2000; Semaw et al., 2003). The earliest evidence of stone-tool affected butchering by Hominins was at the same location, Gona, Ethiopia (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2005). Because of the ever-improving various, elaborate techniques for dating, we are now able to place both the stone tools and the cut-marked bones into a very close time frame. The problem is, these artefacts are static objects so by themselves cannot enlighten us as to the process by which they were made or how, precisely, they were used. This segment looks at how researchers are turning these static items into the dynamic entities of their origins by experimental archaeology. Not only can experimental archaeology shed light on how tools were made and used but also how hominins interacted with their environment, Their cognitive processes and the development of behaviors, traditions, and ideological paradigms.
Background: (Bridging the gap between the static artefacts and the dynamics of prehistoric societies).
Most intelligent people would ask “how can a rock, bone or other thing known to be several thousand years old tell a story as to its origins or usage when we were not there to witness such things”? This has been the consensus for archaeologists until relatively recent times. Assumptions could be made of course, e.g., certain kinds of cleavage and/or wear patterns could suggest hominin agency or even conventional methodology was involved in relation to stone artefacts. Bone damage could be analyzed in much the same way, i.e., cut-marks highly unlikely by a carnivore or scavenger so must be a hominin butchering technique. Although these observations have been useful towards a better understanding of the human journey they are a long way short of what is becoming acceptable as an empirically sound approach for validation of our past to present experience. The thing is, “things” are items of entanglement and entrapment associated with humans in by-gone eras (Hodder, 2014). Humans, as we know, become entangled with things and their associated usage in today’s global society we see this in a considerable way with, e.g., smartphones, I-pads, and computers whereby these things represent an entanglement with social networking, online transactions, etc. and even to a significant extent ideology change. The future of entanglement may be with artificial intelligence and a shift towards a democracy-based global idealism (Harari, 2016) as opposed to the nationalism in vogue now.
Specific Context
The evidence of tool usage, whether stone or metal in prehistory is generally associated with animal butchering and/or weapons activity. It is, with this in mind, that this segment focusses on experimental archaeology examples directly related to these processes and the part Hominins in prehistory played based on how the artefact assemblage speaks to us. The examples cited to demonstrate how the recreation of things and similar circumstances help to view better our prehistoric journey and the environment the journey took place within. We can hopefully better understand how things such as stone tools were used, why they were used in certain ways, who may have used them and in some cases, why tools or expected associated artefacts such as bones are absent from archaeological assemblages. The more we experiment, the more we know what to look for on the ground.
All information sourced for this segment is from reputable, recognized sources as cited within the text then referenced in the bibliography at the end of the book.
Example 1:
The earliest evidence for usage of stone tools by Hominins for meat processing was found at Gona in Ethiopia between 1992 and 1994 dating to around 2.58 to 2.1 million years ago (Semaw et al., 1997) where both tools and the cut-marked faunal remains were found and empirically dated using radio-isotopic dating together with magnetic polarity stratigraphy of the Gona sequence. Most of the cut-marks were a combination of macroscopic, i.e., deep V grooved cuts (figure 27) and internal microstriations, Herzian cones and shoulder effects … all indicative of Hominin butchering activities. The placement of such cut-marks suggests that early Pliocene Hominins used their crafted stone tools for butchering ungulates. The evidence also suggests that the carcasses were eviscerated while also defleshing the larger upper limbs of the animals that were either hunted or scavenged (Domı´nguez-Rodrigo et al., 2004).
Experimental archaeology has been carried out to understand better and support the evidence suggested by the static artefacts for these finds. This, I suggest, is the obvious starting point for the process of analyzing the part that experimental archaeology can play in the validation of claims made by archaeologists.
Cutmarks as opposed to other bone markings
To demonstrate and validate the experimental archaeology regarding how much similarity exists between modern experiments utilizing the same materials including original artefacts and the marks found on prehistoric faunal assemblages the report looks firstly at a paper by Potts & Shipman (1981) whereby the authors have compared tool and tooth markings on Olduvai fossils of around 1.75 Ma (figure 27) with that of markings made on bones experimentally (figure 28). The results are quite convincing. Although at the time of this experiment there was no known artefact find that exactly replicated new experimental cutmarks at a microscopic level, however the results of this study exhibit a noticeable variation between the types of cutmarks and tooth marks and the similarity to experimental samples. The study establishes that It is possible to recreate cutmarks that support the hypothesis that very early Hominins used stone tools for butchering. However, their findings suggest that the fossilized bone artefacts used in this experiment were also altered by other than Hominin activities and that the fossilized bones were not in all cases found in association with stone tools.
Figure 28
An actual Olduvai Gorge fossil of ~1.75 Ma exhibiting the typical V groove slicing mark with parallel striations and scraping marks … consistent with the markings of the experimental markings of Fig 2. Image from Potts & Shipman (1981).
An actual Olduvai Gorge fossil of ~1.75 Ma exhibiting the typical V groove slicing mark with parallel striations and scraping marks … consistent with the markings of the experimental markings of Fig 2. Image from Potts & Shipman (1981).
Figure 29 a & b
Experimental slicing and scrapping of clean bone using stone tool artefacts.
Notice the similarities between the experimental slicing and scraping marks especially the ‘V’ grooving in the slicing (Fig. 28) and the parallel striations in both Fig. 29a and Fig. 29b, the slightly rougher slicing characteristics of the experimental slicing in Fig. 29a may be because of the weathering or tool blunting of the prehistoric stone tool used for the experiment. Image from Potts & Shipman (1981).
Experimental slicing and scrapping of clean bone using stone tool artefacts.
Notice the similarities between the experimental slicing and scraping marks especially the ‘V’ grooving in the slicing (Fig. 28) and the parallel striations in both Fig. 29a and Fig. 29b, the slightly rougher slicing characteristics of the experimental slicing in Fig. 29a may be because of the weathering or tool blunting of the prehistoric stone tool used for the experiment. Image from Potts & Shipman (1981).
|
Figure 30
This image is of experimental alternatives to slicing or scraping marks on clean bone. Notice how easy it is to distinguish the difference, i.e., no parallel striations in the tooth markings (d & e) while the tooth puncture mark (f) displays a rounded feature. Very different markings from that of butchering. Image from Potts & Shipman (1981). |
Tool attrition testing
The consensus in much of the literature on Paleolithic butchery suggests that prehistoric butchers avoided creating cut marks with stone tools because this would be inefficient as the tools would need to be continuously modified or replaced. This is further supported by the disproportionate abundance of stone tools compared to the amount of hominin-modified fossil bones. Bunn (2001) suggests that Cutmarks are mistakes due to miscalculations when dense muscle mass obscures the skeletal element position.
Dominguez-Rodrigo 1999 carried out an experiment where two skilled contemporary butchers were presented with 18 skinned hindlimbs of cattle, sheep, and zebra (6 Bos taurus, 5 Ovis aries and 6 Equus hurchelli). The butchers were given 18 flakes produced from fine-grained tholeiitic basalts sourced from Turkana Basin Kenya. Only one flake to be used for each animal hindlimb. The aim of the experiment was to compare the amount of edge attrition with the number of cut marks per animal.
The result was that for all the hindlimbs butchered, the risk of rejecting the hypothesis that butchering did not cause significant attrition to the flakes was established at 90% (P = 0.10 level of significance) (Braun et al., 2007). This result supports the hypothesis that prehistoric butchers avoided deleterious use of their valuable stone tools which makes sense, carrying extra tools or having to replace tools would threaten the survival of the individual or indeed the species.
From the author’s own experience at making a stone knife using only natural resources and a great deal of time, it makes sense that efficiency during the process of butchering is a priority indeed.
The important message from this experimentation is, If one finds little or no evidence of Hominin inflicted cut-marks, it does not mean that Hominins weren’t involved, one needs to look for other evidence of Hominin involvement.
Fossil record abnormalities
Worn out, broken or for that matter intact stone tools will and have survived from at least the ~2.6 million years of the Gona, Ethiopia site. This may not always be the case for the butchered animal parts that they were used on. One experiment that addresses this abnormality was by archaeologist E. Lotan of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2000 (Lotan, 2000). Lotan (2000) carried out a comprehensive experiment within the Jordan Valley in Israel where he deposited 16 whole animal carcasses of known age, taxa (Bos taurus) and weight at random, then over a 3-year period, noted the effect of the environment i.e., weathering, scavenging and consequential scattering and survival or disappearance of the bones.
The result of this particular experiment was that scavenging is the most crucial taphonomy agent to cause total bone disappearance especially in small and young animals …and only a small number of mature adult animal bones remained after the 3-year period as possible candidates for burial and subsequent fossilization. Because this experiment was carried out in a nature reserve partially occupied by humans, it was also possible to observe and analyze the statistical correlation of bone scattering and bone survival relative to human inhabitance. The correlation showed a significant increase in bone survival close to human occupation relative to where humans were absent. Of course, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This was a compelling archaeological experiment that did suggest contemporary scavengers could produce equivalent results as those in prehistory. If this is the case than it does shed light on why there is a discrepancy as to the reduced number of bones compared to evidence of stone tools recovered from prehistoric sites, enabling researches to recognize that where there are more bones, there is a good chance of finding Hominin related artefacts.
An Australian study
Melanie Fillios (2016) of New England University carried out a study looking at bone distribution and bone survival in the presence of scavengers. The study was carried out between November 2009 to November 2013 in a semi-arid zone in western NSW Australia. Melanie distributed mature adult kangaroo carcasses (n = 4) adjacent to both temporary and permanent waterholes on open woodlands. The area of the study receives, on average, rainfall of between 300 to 383 mm per year, with a higher than statistically average rainfall over the study period. The ambient temperature over the study period was between 22o to 32oC. The aim of the study was to question the current evaluation of hunted vs. scavenged prey in archaeological assemblages while questioning the role that humans may have played in the extinction of megafauna in Australia.
Melanie’s method used game cameras to observe scavenging activities and bone distribution activities. The cameras could and indeed did pick up otherwise ‘invisible’ scavengers and scavenger activities. The results showed that all carcasses were moved to some degree from their original placement. The smaller bone elements were either entirely deleted by the larger scavengers (feral pigs and foxes) …either eaten in situ or distributed over a >50 M2 area. The bones that remained with the carcass included the larger lower limb elements (femora, tibia, and acetabula …and these were often still complete with tiny tooth marking, only around 10% or less of the remaining bone elements exhibited tooth marks. Small bone elements were generally wholly absent.
This experiment is informative as it indicates that scavenging evidence may be completely missing from an investigational archaeological context but may have still occurred, so one needs to look for other tell-tale signs, i.e., the possible survival of teeth that are so dense they out-survive other bone elements. The cameras can shed light on otherwise unknown scavenging behaviors, and the way bones may be distributed so that other avenues of investigation can be affected, e.g., missing articulated skeletal elements is not evidence of disturbance, the remaining bone assemblage could still be in situ.
What the experiment does suggest that would be otherwise invisible is the fact that scavenging by large species deletes bones giving a false indication of the animal type and number when counting skeletal elements in context with the site. In the case of macropod scavenging the skeletal element, the profile could erroneously suggest human hunting or scavenging because of the “high utility elements” remaining when this is not necessarily the case, meaning that skeletal element frequency is not reliable evidence to suggest human agency for the faunal assemblage accumulation. This study does not, therefore, offer any evidence for human involvement in the demise of the Australian megafauna, but is helpful when interpreting other aspects of faunal assemblages from prehistory, especially that a lack of scavenging evidence does not mean it did not happen.
Other bone modification processes:
Trampling
Archaeological experiments are carried out to compare whether bone markings are from butchering, scavenging, weathering or trampling independently or a combination of this taphonomy and/or behavioral processes. If evidence of trampling exists, then it could reinforce the findings of Hominin or other animals contributing to the bone damage post-death. It is not however enough to assume that because bone markings are not consistent with butchering or scavenging that they must be from trampling, so well controlled experimental archaeology can and is very helpful in interpretation here. From a prehistoric faunal assemblage, it would be rare indeed that all forms of taphonomic abrasion other than trampling could be eliminated so experimental trampling on otherwise intact bones is a decisive step in gaining some insight as to what effect trampling has. Olsen (1988) carried out an elaborate experiment that could either support or criticize archaeological faunal assemblage suggestions of trampling.
The aim of the experiment was to recreate the effect of trampling by soft-footed animals including hominins. Samples of four grades of sediment were used to look at the results under differing environmental conditions, i.e., pea gravel, coarse sand, fine sand, and potting soil.
The consensus in much of the literature on Paleolithic butchery suggests that prehistoric butchers avoided creating cut marks with stone tools because this would be inefficient as the tools would need to be continuously modified or replaced. This is further supported by the disproportionate abundance of stone tools compared to the amount of hominin-modified fossil bones. Bunn (2001) suggests that Cutmarks are mistakes due to miscalculations when dense muscle mass obscures the skeletal element position.
Dominguez-Rodrigo 1999 carried out an experiment where two skilled contemporary butchers were presented with 18 skinned hindlimbs of cattle, sheep, and zebra (6 Bos taurus, 5 Ovis aries and 6 Equus hurchelli). The butchers were given 18 flakes produced from fine-grained tholeiitic basalts sourced from Turkana Basin Kenya. Only one flake to be used for each animal hindlimb. The aim of the experiment was to compare the amount of edge attrition with the number of cut marks per animal.
The result was that for all the hindlimbs butchered, the risk of rejecting the hypothesis that butchering did not cause significant attrition to the flakes was established at 90% (P = 0.10 level of significance) (Braun et al., 2007). This result supports the hypothesis that prehistoric butchers avoided deleterious use of their valuable stone tools which makes sense, carrying extra tools or having to replace tools would threaten the survival of the individual or indeed the species.
From the author’s own experience at making a stone knife using only natural resources and a great deal of time, it makes sense that efficiency during the process of butchering is a priority indeed.
The important message from this experimentation is, If one finds little or no evidence of Hominin inflicted cut-marks, it does not mean that Hominins weren’t involved, one needs to look for other evidence of Hominin involvement.
Fossil record abnormalities
Worn out, broken or for that matter intact stone tools will and have survived from at least the ~2.6 million years of the Gona, Ethiopia site. This may not always be the case for the butchered animal parts that they were used on. One experiment that addresses this abnormality was by archaeologist E. Lotan of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2000 (Lotan, 2000). Lotan (2000) carried out a comprehensive experiment within the Jordan Valley in Israel where he deposited 16 whole animal carcasses of known age, taxa (Bos taurus) and weight at random, then over a 3-year period, noted the effect of the environment i.e., weathering, scavenging and consequential scattering and survival or disappearance of the bones.
The result of this particular experiment was that scavenging is the most crucial taphonomy agent to cause total bone disappearance especially in small and young animals …and only a small number of mature adult animal bones remained after the 3-year period as possible candidates for burial and subsequent fossilization. Because this experiment was carried out in a nature reserve partially occupied by humans, it was also possible to observe and analyze the statistical correlation of bone scattering and bone survival relative to human inhabitance. The correlation showed a significant increase in bone survival close to human occupation relative to where humans were absent. Of course, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This was a compelling archaeological experiment that did suggest contemporary scavengers could produce equivalent results as those in prehistory. If this is the case than it does shed light on why there is a discrepancy as to the reduced number of bones compared to evidence of stone tools recovered from prehistoric sites, enabling researches to recognize that where there are more bones, there is a good chance of finding Hominin related artefacts.
An Australian study
Melanie Fillios (2016) of New England University carried out a study looking at bone distribution and bone survival in the presence of scavengers. The study was carried out between November 2009 to November 2013 in a semi-arid zone in western NSW Australia. Melanie distributed mature adult kangaroo carcasses (n = 4) adjacent to both temporary and permanent waterholes on open woodlands. The area of the study receives, on average, rainfall of between 300 to 383 mm per year, with a higher than statistically average rainfall over the study period. The ambient temperature over the study period was between 22o to 32oC. The aim of the study was to question the current evaluation of hunted vs. scavenged prey in archaeological assemblages while questioning the role that humans may have played in the extinction of megafauna in Australia.
Melanie’s method used game cameras to observe scavenging activities and bone distribution activities. The cameras could and indeed did pick up otherwise ‘invisible’ scavengers and scavenger activities. The results showed that all carcasses were moved to some degree from their original placement. The smaller bone elements were either entirely deleted by the larger scavengers (feral pigs and foxes) …either eaten in situ or distributed over a >50 M2 area. The bones that remained with the carcass included the larger lower limb elements (femora, tibia, and acetabula …and these were often still complete with tiny tooth marking, only around 10% or less of the remaining bone elements exhibited tooth marks. Small bone elements were generally wholly absent.
This experiment is informative as it indicates that scavenging evidence may be completely missing from an investigational archaeological context but may have still occurred, so one needs to look for other tell-tale signs, i.e., the possible survival of teeth that are so dense they out-survive other bone elements. The cameras can shed light on otherwise unknown scavenging behaviors, and the way bones may be distributed so that other avenues of investigation can be affected, e.g., missing articulated skeletal elements is not evidence of disturbance, the remaining bone assemblage could still be in situ.
What the experiment does suggest that would be otherwise invisible is the fact that scavenging by large species deletes bones giving a false indication of the animal type and number when counting skeletal elements in context with the site. In the case of macropod scavenging the skeletal element, the profile could erroneously suggest human hunting or scavenging because of the “high utility elements” remaining when this is not necessarily the case, meaning that skeletal element frequency is not reliable evidence to suggest human agency for the faunal assemblage accumulation. This study does not, therefore, offer any evidence for human involvement in the demise of the Australian megafauna, but is helpful when interpreting other aspects of faunal assemblages from prehistory, especially that a lack of scavenging evidence does not mean it did not happen.
Other bone modification processes:
Trampling
Archaeological experiments are carried out to compare whether bone markings are from butchering, scavenging, weathering or trampling independently or a combination of this taphonomy and/or behavioral processes. If evidence of trampling exists, then it could reinforce the findings of Hominin or other animals contributing to the bone damage post-death. It is not however enough to assume that because bone markings are not consistent with butchering or scavenging that they must be from trampling, so well controlled experimental archaeology can and is very helpful in interpretation here. From a prehistoric faunal assemblage, it would be rare indeed that all forms of taphonomic abrasion other than trampling could be eliminated so experimental trampling on otherwise intact bones is a decisive step in gaining some insight as to what effect trampling has. Olsen (1988) carried out an elaborate experiment that could either support or criticize archaeological faunal assemblage suggestions of trampling.
The aim of the experiment was to recreate the effect of trampling by soft-footed animals including hominins. Samples of four grades of sediment were used to look at the results under differing environmental conditions, i.e., pea gravel, coarse sand, fine sand, and potting soil.
Figure 31
Coarse and fine grains from experimental trampling conducted in a controlled environment of the laboratory. Images selected from Olsen (1988), Texting modified by the author.
Coarse and fine grains from experimental trampling conducted in a controlled environment of the laboratory. Images selected from Olsen (1988), Texting modified by the author.
Cleaned contemporary butchered bones. were placed in the different sediment categories (figure 30) including potting soil not illustrated. The bones were first lightly boiled to remove soft tissue, also inspected to ensure no butchering cut-marks, cartilage, periosteum, tendons or ligaments were present prior to the experiment. The sample trays of sediment and bone were then walked on by barefooted humans for a period of two hours per tray. For comparison, sheep metacarpals were subjected to butchering cut-marks after the same soft tissue removal, etc. as the experimental bones (figure 31).
Figure 32
Cut-marked experimental metacarpals (sheep), made by un-retouched flakes. Note the apparent parallel striations. Image b is a close-up of the image a — images selected from Olsen (1988) texting modified by the author.
Cut-marked experimental metacarpals (sheep), made by un-retouched flakes. Note the apparent parallel striations. Image b is a close-up of the image a — images selected from Olsen (1988) texting modified by the author.
On completion of the experiment, the bones were washed and dried then inspected for meaningful patterns of markings (figure 32). The features exhibited on the sediment trampled bones were dramatically different from that of butchered bones, e.g., all the trampled bone surfaces were polished (the exception being the potting soil) with the pea-gravel indicative of the highest degree of polishing followed by the coarse and fine sand in that order. Very fine, shallow striations were created on all but the potting soil, but none exhibited the parallel characteristics of stone tool butchering seen in Figure 31. The experiment was very successful in pointing out the very different expectations of trampling vs. butchering in archaeological assemblages.
Figure 33
c, Scraped experimental metacarpal bone. The tool was a flint burin. Note the scraping striations shown near horizontal. Note also the vertical chatter marks. d, Abraded metacarpal bone using a flat piece of sandstone rubbed bidirectionally. e, human trampled experimental radius bone (cow) in pea gravel sediment. Note groove size variability. f, Human trampled experimental humerus (cow) in coarse sand. Note none parallel fine striations — these Images selected from Olsen (1988) with texting modified by the author.
c, Scraped experimental metacarpal bone. The tool was a flint burin. Note the scraping striations shown near horizontal. Note also the vertical chatter marks. d, Abraded metacarpal bone using a flat piece of sandstone rubbed bidirectionally. e, human trampled experimental radius bone (cow) in pea gravel sediment. Note groove size variability. f, Human trampled experimental humerus (cow) in coarse sand. Note none parallel fine striations — these Images selected from Olsen (1988) with texting modified by the author.
Figure 34
g, Close up of the image (f) in fig 5 indicating uneven striations and orientations. h, Human trampled experimental femur (cow) in fine sand. Note the very fine non-parallel striations. I, Close-up of image h in fig. 5 showing one irregular striation. j, Human trampled experimental metacarpal (sheep) in potting soil containing fresh flint flakes. Note the similarity to a tiny chop mark — images selected from Olsen (1988) texting modified by the author.
g, Close up of the image (f) in fig 5 indicating uneven striations and orientations. h, Human trampled experimental femur (cow) in fine sand. Note the very fine non-parallel striations. I, Close-up of image h in fig. 5 showing one irregular striation. j, Human trampled experimental metacarpal (sheep) in potting soil containing fresh flint flakes. Note the similarity to a tiny chop mark — images selected from Olsen (1988) texting modified by the author.
Other experimental markings were produced (e.g., see figure 34) to be compared with the human trampling marks (figure 34) below.
Figure 35
k, chopped (single blow) experimental humerus bone (sheep) using an obsidian chopper Note the V-shaped mark with transverse striations towards the base. l, Shallow sweeping striations from another experiment by Behrensmeyer et al., (1986) that can superficially look like scraping marks. These were achieved by human trampling of silt and limestone scree in northern Greece. m, Cattle trampled experimental cow radius (Fiorillo, 1984). n, Camelid (?) rib aged Miocene from a quarry. Note sedimentary abrasions. o, Another skeletal element of the same camelid at higher magnification. Images selected from Olsen (1988). Texting modified by the author.
k, chopped (single blow) experimental humerus bone (sheep) using an obsidian chopper Note the V-shaped mark with transverse striations towards the base. l, Shallow sweeping striations from another experiment by Behrensmeyer et al., (1986) that can superficially look like scraping marks. These were achieved by human trampling of silt and limestone scree in northern Greece. m, Cattle trampled experimental cow radius (Fiorillo, 1984). n, Camelid (?) rib aged Miocene from a quarry. Note sedimentary abrasions. o, Another skeletal element of the same camelid at higher magnification. Images selected from Olsen (1988). Texting modified by the author.
These documented examples are significant as it highlights the noticeable visual difference between butchering marks and that of trampling so validates the use of experimental archaeology when comparing such activities. It is also useful when making decisions as to either/or circumstances of artefact markings. What would be an interesting follow-up experiment is to look at how it is possible to convincingly ascertain butchering activities where there has been both butchering and trampling on the same sample set. This could be done empirically by statistically testing a set of samples that have been trampled, butchered or both with the investigator uninformed of which ones underwent which processes are then statistically testing the experimenter’s findings against the known actuals for risk of rejecting his/her conclusions.
Weathering
Bones in archaeological assemblages will apparently be subjected to other taphonomic processes that could create confusion when investigating prehistoric Hominin behavioral activities, i.e., surface bleaching, cracking and splintering. The process is poorly understood however research does offer some evidence for what contributes to the process of weathering. Ultraviolet exposure. Leaching of minerals, thermal variability causing stresses due to expansion and contraction, exposure to the absence of water also seasonal freezing and thawing. Pokines et al., 2018 carried out experiments looking at one of these contributors to bone weathering, i.e., wetting and drying. The author's processed white-tailed deer bones as follows … 25 tibiae, 25 ribs, 25 vertebrae, and 25 first phalanges. The bones were in the most case allowed to freeze, thaw and decompose in the natural environment for a year.
For each day of the experiment, the bones were submerged in water for 2 hours minimum then removed and allowed to dry overnight then, after ‘dry-to-touch’ the next day the process was repeated. Throughout the period the ambient temperature was maintained at 22 o C to 28 o C.
All bones were digitally photographed. Before 150 cycles very little significant delamination or cracking was apparent based on a range of categories of cracking and/or delaminating assigned by the authors.
After 150 cycles 31% of the bones had reached the first category (WS 1) with only a tibia reaching the second category (WS 2).
Weathering
Bones in archaeological assemblages will apparently be subjected to other taphonomic processes that could create confusion when investigating prehistoric Hominin behavioral activities, i.e., surface bleaching, cracking and splintering. The process is poorly understood however research does offer some evidence for what contributes to the process of weathering. Ultraviolet exposure. Leaching of minerals, thermal variability causing stresses due to expansion and contraction, exposure to the absence of water also seasonal freezing and thawing. Pokines et al., 2018 carried out experiments looking at one of these contributors to bone weathering, i.e., wetting and drying. The author's processed white-tailed deer bones as follows … 25 tibiae, 25 ribs, 25 vertebrae, and 25 first phalanges. The bones were in the most case allowed to freeze, thaw and decompose in the natural environment for a year.
For each day of the experiment, the bones were submerged in water for 2 hours minimum then removed and allowed to dry overnight then, after ‘dry-to-touch’ the next day the process was repeated. Throughout the period the ambient temperature was maintained at 22 o C to 28 o C.
All bones were digitally photographed. Before 150 cycles very little significant delamination or cracking was apparent based on a range of categories of cracking and/or delaminating assigned by the authors.
After 150 cycles 31% of the bones had reached the first category (WS 1) with only a tibia reaching the second category (WS 2).
Figure 36
At 150 cycles a distal tibia fine-cracking of cortical surface (WS 1). Image courtesy of Pokines et al., 2018. P. 437.
At 150 cycles a distal tibia fine-cracking of cortical surface (WS 1). Image courtesy of Pokines et al., 2018. P. 437.
Figure 37
After 150 cycles cracking and flaking was apparent on a distal tibia. Image courtesy of Pokines et al., 2018. P. 437.
After 150 cycles cracking and flaking was apparent on a distal tibia. Image courtesy of Pokines et al., 2018. P. 437.
Only 15% of the bones exhibited cracking. Phalanges exhibiting the least amount of physical change, all bones exhibited slight bleaching throughout the experiment. This study does suggest that wetting and drying cycles can be indicators of circumstances in the dynamics of prehistory. However, more variables would add to the validation of the experiment. Also, the wetting and drying cycles would more than likely be far longer in the natural world and this should be considered. A well thought out and useful example of experimental archaeology just the same.
Metal tool cutmarks
Although this report is primarily aimed at the relationship between stone tools and bone in experimental archaeology the author feels it appropriate to talk about the difference between cutmarks from metal blades and that of stone tools should there be the possibility of both being present in an archaeological assemblage. Greenfield (1999) carried out an experiment that showed the different expectation of each type of tool when viewed under very high magnifications using scanning electron microscopy SEM technology. It is generally assumed that metal tools replaced stone tools around the time of the late Neolithic Late Neolithic (c. 3900–3300 BC). There is very little tactile evidence of early metal tools probably because they don’t survive well. Also, they were probably precious items that could be refashioned. Given that there was apparently a transitional period at the time of their introduction the evidence of such transition should be apparent in fossilized bones of that period. Therefore, it is vital that archaeologists can tell the difference. The experiment focused on various types of modern knives compared with what Greenfield (1999) called “chipped-edge” stone tools from an archaeological assemblage at Petnica, central Balkans dating from the late to post Neolithic period. Greenfield chose softwood as the cutting substrate as opposed to bone given that it would produce more consistent results than bone that is of its nature very variable in hardness and texture etc. The resulting difference between stone and metal is very distinctive at relatively high magnification. Modern metal knives always produced either a V-shaped profile with no striations or P shaped profiles (blunt knife) with no parallel sides (figure 35) while stone tools produce a more irregular profile with ancillary striations (figure 27) from Olduvai gorge also.
Figure 38
Comparison (reverse molds) of a modern knife to an original stone blade from late or post-Neolithic, Petnica, northern Balkans. Note the similar ‘V’ shape, but the stone tool is much more irregular. Images from Greenfield, (1998). Texting modified by the author.
Comparison (reverse molds) of a modern knife to an original stone blade from late or post-Neolithic, Petnica, northern Balkans. Note the similar ‘V’ shape, but the stone tool is much more irregular. Images from Greenfield, (1998). Texting modified by the author.
Although this is a compelling experiment, some of the comparisons are not varied sufficiently enough to avoid misinterpretation so more work in this area would be well received.
Analogy
According to Gifford-Gonzalez (1991), analogies can be useful only if they comply to a uniformitarianism framework that eliminates the problem of ambiguity or equifinality, i.e., for the result to be heuristically valid and appropriate; the experiment must be empirically repeatable according to the scientific method to avoid post-processual criticism. An experimental archaeology project can only be valid within the known parameters of the experiment and that the parametric entities existed at the time of the archaeological assemblage under investigation.
Although most of the cut-mark studies visited by Gifford-Gonzalez (1991) do not fall well into this category, there is one that addresses the framework to the extent that analogy can be a valid tool for experimental archaeology.
Figure 39
This chart suggests the hierarchy of validity for analogy as suggested by Gifford-Gonzalez (1991) for the archaeological assemblage at FLK Zinj (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2014). Note the work by Domınguez-Rodrigo, (1997a) rates the highest. Image courtesy of Gifford-Gonzalez (1991) with additional text by the author.
This chart suggests the hierarchy of validity for analogy as suggested by Gifford-Gonzalez (1991) for the archaeological assemblage at FLK Zinj (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2014). Note the work by Domınguez-Rodrigo, (1997a) rates the highest. Image courtesy of Gifford-Gonzalez (1991) with additional text by the author.
Domınguez-Rodrigo, M. (1997a) used an experimental analogy to investigate whether hominids processed animal bones that had abundant flesh as opposed to de-fleshed Felid (Felidae, cats) kills. He suggested experimental protocols of opposite-hypothesis testing, i.e., (1) That Hominins had primary access to prey whereby they de-fleshed the bones completely then smashed the bones to access marrow (2) Hominins removed the scraps left on the bones from Felid (Felidae, cats) kills then smashed the bones to extract marrow. He chose to use independent clusters of relational analogies combined with a methodological uniformitarian approach to better validate the results. The results suggested that differential cut-mark frequencies and anatomical distribution can be used to suggest either-or-butchery of fleshed carcasses by Hominins vs. removal of scraps left on carcasses from felid kills, supporting the idea that Hominins had primary access to carcasses as their dominant strategy for food acquisition. It is essential that more work is carried out in relation to the use of analogy in experimental archaeology however according to Gifford-Gonzalez (1991) the Domınguez-Rodrigo, M. (1997a) study goes a long way in satisfying the skeptics of analogy in experimental archaeology I think.
Conclusion
The human animal is slower, weaker and less well equipped to survive a harsh dynamic environment of extremes than the animals that could benefit from eating him/her, or for that matter, the animals and plants that could be necessary sustenance for his/her survival. For survival in the middle to northern latitudes of the Paleolithic environment, it would have been essential to, i.e., maintain core body temperature, meet the energetic demands of mobility, cope with reduced resource availability and increasing patchiness of food supply while meeting nutritional requirements (Hosfield, 2016).
Hominins needed something else for their collective genome to survive the way it has over the last 3 million years or so. From an evolutionary perspective, this was initiated with the development of attributes that differentiated Hominins from the other animals and to a large extent, ensured its survival, first and foremost, bipedalism and a large complex brain enabling an inventive cognition and co-operation that led to a ~3 million years of Hominin and stone tool entanglement. Binford (1981) talks about the record of archaeology being a “structure of relationships” that create the forms of matter that we find in the archaeological assemblages being the result of the energy sources within the paradigm of their manifestation. I tend to go a step further, i.e., I believe the forms of matter represent the reflection of evolutionarily stable strategies … while the ‘form of matter’ exists so must the paradigm, i.e., the ideology and societal tradition that is the glue binding the fabric that protects the genome. Binford’s analogy of the bear and its footprint exist in the world today, so we can empirically associate one belonging to the other. If we find evidence of the paradigm in the archaeological record, then we must inevitably find the forms of matter and vice versa. Experimental archaeology, carried out appropriately, is a tool to validate the dynamic paradigm of prehistory. No Rosetta Stone exists to connect the static archaeological assemblages of now to the dynamics of yesterday however experimental archaeology is an invaluable tool towards a better understanding. The examples in this report are a testament towards that goal. The lithic/bone experiments could be described as “actualistic experiments” to quote Outram (2008, 2). as they are carried out using authentic materials for comparison. Inferences drawn from these experiments can be seen as robust in my view.
It is essential to recognize of course that it is the cognitive process of modern Homo sapiens that carried out these experiments, not Hominins from thousands if not millions of years ago. The validity based on this understanding will always be questionable for a good reason.
Conclusion
The human animal is slower, weaker and less well equipped to survive a harsh dynamic environment of extremes than the animals that could benefit from eating him/her, or for that matter, the animals and plants that could be necessary sustenance for his/her survival. For survival in the middle to northern latitudes of the Paleolithic environment, it would have been essential to, i.e., maintain core body temperature, meet the energetic demands of mobility, cope with reduced resource availability and increasing patchiness of food supply while meeting nutritional requirements (Hosfield, 2016).
Hominins needed something else for their collective genome to survive the way it has over the last 3 million years or so. From an evolutionary perspective, this was initiated with the development of attributes that differentiated Hominins from the other animals and to a large extent, ensured its survival, first and foremost, bipedalism and a large complex brain enabling an inventive cognition and co-operation that led to a ~3 million years of Hominin and stone tool entanglement. Binford (1981) talks about the record of archaeology being a “structure of relationships” that create the forms of matter that we find in the archaeological assemblages being the result of the energy sources within the paradigm of their manifestation. I tend to go a step further, i.e., I believe the forms of matter represent the reflection of evolutionarily stable strategies … while the ‘form of matter’ exists so must the paradigm, i.e., the ideology and societal tradition that is the glue binding the fabric that protects the genome. Binford’s analogy of the bear and its footprint exist in the world today, so we can empirically associate one belonging to the other. If we find evidence of the paradigm in the archaeological record, then we must inevitably find the forms of matter and vice versa. Experimental archaeology, carried out appropriately, is a tool to validate the dynamic paradigm of prehistory. No Rosetta Stone exists to connect the static archaeological assemblages of now to the dynamics of yesterday however experimental archaeology is an invaluable tool towards a better understanding. The examples in this report are a testament towards that goal. The lithic/bone experiments could be described as “actualistic experiments” to quote Outram (2008, 2). as they are carried out using authentic materials for comparison. Inferences drawn from these experiments can be seen as robust in my view.
It is essential to recognize of course that it is the cognitive process of modern Homo sapiens that carried out these experiments, not Hominins from thousands if not millions of years ago. The validity based on this understanding will always be questionable for a good reason.
Bibliography including cited references for chapter 5a
Behrensmeyer, A.K., Gordon, K.D. and Yanagi, G.T., 1986. Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature, 319(6056), p.768.
Braun, D.R., Pobiner, B.L. and Thompson, J.C., 2008. An experimental investigation of cut mark production and stone tool attrition. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(5), pp.1216-1223.
Callaway, E., 2015. Oldest stone tools raise questions about their creators. Nature News, 520(7548), p.421.
Cameron, D., 1993. Uniformitarianism and prehistoric archaeology. Australian Archaeology, 36(1), pp.42-49.
Domı́nguez-Rodrigo, M., 1997. Meat-eating by early hominids at the FLK 22Zinjanthropussite, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): an experimental approach using cut-mark data. Journal of human Evolution, 33(6), pp.669-690.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., 1999. Meat-eating and carcass procurement by hominids at the FLK Zinj 22 site, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): a new experimental approach to the old hunting-versus-scavenging debate. Lifestyles and Survival Strategies in Pliocene and Pleistocene Hominids. Edition Archaea, Schwelm, Germany, pp.89-111.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., Semaw, S. and Rogers, M.J., 2005. Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia: implications for the function of the world's oldest stone tools. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(2), pp.109-121.
Fillios, M.A., 2016. Food for thought: using game cameras to better understand the movement of bones by scavenging in archaeological faunal assemblages. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 8(2), pp.317-328.
Fiorillo, A.R., 1984. An introduction to the identification of trample marks. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 1(4).
Greenfield, H.J., 1999. The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cut-marks on bones from archaeological sites. Journal of archaeological science, 26(7), pp.797-808.
Hoberman, J. (1995). Towards a Theory of Olympic Internationalism. Journal of Sport History, 22, (1). p. 9
Hodder, I., 2014. The entanglements of humans and things: A long-term view. New literary history, 45(1), pp.19-36.
Hosfield, R., Hutson, J.M., MacDonald, K., Pope, M., Sharon, G., Hosfield, R., 2016. Walking in a winter wonderland? strategies for early and middle Pleistocene survival in Midlatitude Europe. Current Anthropology, 57(5), pp.653-683.
Lotan, E., 2000. Feeding the scavengers. Actualistic taphonomy in the Jordan Valley, Israel. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 10(6), pp.407-425.
Bunn, H.T. and Yravedra, J., 2014. A critical re-evaluation of bone surface modification models for inferring fossil hominin and carnivore interactions through a multivariate approach: application to the FLK Zinj archaeofaunal assemblage (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Quaternary International, 322, pp.32-43.
Olsen, S.L. and Shipman, P., 1988. Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery. Journal of archaeological science, 15(5), pp.535-553.
Outram, A.K., 2008. Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology, 40(1), pp.1-6.
Pokines, J.T., Faillace, K., Berger, J., Pirtle, D., Sharpe, M., Curtis, A., Lombardi, K. and Admans, J., 2018. The effects of repeated wet-dry cycles as a component of bone weathering. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 17, pp.433-441.
Potts, R. and Shipman, P., 1981. Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature, 291(5816), p.577.
Semaw, S., 2000. The world's oldest stone artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: their implications for understanding stone technology and patterns of human evolution between 2· 6–1· 5 million years ago. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27(12), pp.1197-1214.
Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J.W., Feibel, C.S., Bernor, R.L., Fesseha, N. and Mowbray, K., 1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature, 385(6614), p.333.
Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Quade, J., Renne, P.R., Butler, R.F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Stout, D., Hart, W.S., Pickering, T. and Simpson, S.W., 2003. 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution, 45(2), pp.169-177.
Wylie, A., 1985. The reaction against analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 8 (pp. 63-111).
Chapter 5b
Experimental design
Experimental archaeology can be used as a tool to magnify the dynamic image of the past when only the static remaining relics exist to assist our observation.
The advent of a processual approach to archaeology towards the late 1950s suggests that validity can only be possible if ideas about the past are subjected to a methodological paradigm consisting of what is known as the hypothetico-deductive model of empirically testing hypotheses using the scientific method. The three experiments designed by the me for this chapter are designed in this way so that others may follow the method, use the independent variables repeatedly to verify what is termed logical positivism, i.e., the ideology, behavioral aspects, etc. of the past can be viewed better with only the material, static remnants of the past together with uniformitarianism as a starting point. I have looked at three areas where experimental archaeology may be helpful in better understanding early Hominin (Hominin, because there is overlap in the archaeological record where some evidence points to other than Homo sapiens involved) behavior that enhanced their survival and wellbeing. I have chosen items that were part of or at least discussed during an intensive school held at Armidale University in august of 2018.
The experiments
- Stone boiling, well documented in the archaeological record but not necessarily corroborated by what we now know as to the physics of what is necessary to ensure high protein-based food is safe and as high in nutritional value as it can be if cooked. Although prehistory Hominins would not have been formally aware of the physics their cognitive development may have incorporated such things in their behavior, e.g., a dog knows nothing of differential calculus but when catching a frizzby that is what its mind is performing, the rate of change calculations.
- Ceramic decoration, again well documented however there is a lot to understand as to its meaning, was it only to look cute or did it have a more culturally symbolic meaning? Can it give us a better understanding of the ideological paradigm within the society it comes from? Our contemporary expression and meaning as far as art is concerned to fit a very different paradigm than that of prehistoric people so it would be naïve to suggest it was merely to look cute in all cases.
- Soapstone as a natural medium exploited for many aspects of Human life and possibly, alongside our seriously long period of entanglement with stone tools, was one of the most valuable assets for the transition from a stone-based cultural survival strategy to a metal-based one given the unique characteristics of soapstone compared with that of other naturally occurring stone. Again, it would be naïve to suggest that the people exploiting it for several thousand years were not aware over time, of its valuable essential and unique properties.
Experiment 1: Stone boiling
There is quite a lot of archaeological evidence for the practice of stone boiling probably even before the evidence of ceramics for cooking. Fortunately, there is also ethnographic evidence as described during in the 1930s by the Kalispel elders remembering the rock-filled ovens, steaming and boiling pits and hot-rock griddles being used in the Montana area in what is now North America, during the 1800s. The narrative from Cabeza de Vaca’s 1528-1536 travels around Southwestern North America coastal plain, and Northern Mexico describes the indigenous occupants’ use of stone boiling and other hot rock cooking processes (Thoms, 2008). This experiment addresses efficacy ideas about the process.
Aim
To investigate what effect the rock (in this case basalt) surface area to volume has on the water heating characteristics and potential for cooking efficacy.
Method
The author has intentionally left out of the independent variables, the basalt core temperature as this needs to be established by trial and era before starting the experiment.
The criterion for this figure is the highest water heating temperature that the author wants to achieve so that the water does not reach boiling point and create an anomaly in the resulting dependent variables based on evaporative losses.
Because cooking is the result of protein denaturing it is essential that the observed water temperature range of the experiment be from the base denaturing of ~41o C through to a minimum of ~65o C (Curtis, 1979) therefore the top water temperature throughout the experiment should be ~90o C.
Experiment sequence
- Each sample, i.e., 1) small basalt rocks, 2) sizeable spherical basalt rock and 3) Large cubic basalt rock are to be heated in a laboratory oven to the set temperature that is just lower than the boiling point. The rocks are then to be immediately submerged in their allocated pots of 2,476 ml of water taking note of the ambient (room) temperature.
- The water temperature (degree C) of each sample is then to be monitored once every minute until the temperature of the water is down to ~30o C, at which point all protein denaturing potential would have ceased.
- The results for each sample is then charted on an EXCEL data set to plot on the chart (Fig. 4).
- The charts can then be visually compared as to the period each sample occupies in firstly, the denaturing range then the overall range between 41o C to 90o C.
The author’s experiment design is aimed at establishing the following
- How long the water in each pot takes to get to the initial starting denaturing temperature of 41 deg C.
- How long the water in each pot takes to reach the highest temperature of 90 deg C.
- How long it takes overall, for the water temperature to drop back to below the denaturing starting point of 41 deg C.
- Comparable integrity changes between pots given the time they are within the protein denaturing range of 41 deg C to 65 deg C and beyond.
The pot that achieves the longest time regarding (d) should indicate the highest efficacy relative to rock size as a means of cooking.
From an archaeological assemblage perspective, the results of this small experiment may be able to shed light on the extent to which the people practicing stone boiling were able to learn from the experience then becoming more efficient at the practice over time.
|
Figure 40
Plot of enzyme activity (protein cooking potential) curve courtesy of Curtis 1979 p.84 with texting added by the author. |
Figure 41
Table of independent and dependent variables
Notice how in figure 41 all the variables other than the surface area and surface area to volume ratio are constant. Therefore, it is only the variation in basalt surface area that can affect the dependent variables. Table by author
Table of independent and dependent variables
Notice how in figure 41 all the variables other than the surface area and surface area to volume ratio are constant. Therefore, it is only the variation in basalt surface area that can affect the dependent variables. Table by author
Figure 42
Pots # 1, 2 & 3 are all equal dimensions and to an equal production standard, they are glazed stoneware — images by the author.
Pots # 1, 2 & 3 are all equal dimensions and to an equal production standard, they are glazed stoneware — images by the author.
Figure 43
The chart represents an example of how the results should be represented to view any variation in the temperature variation plots easily. Cooking will always be achieved within the ‘denaturation (cooking) range’ while heating up to the ‘upper range for experiment’ is superfluous as denaturation for all proteins happens before 75 deg C (Curtis 1979). Image by author.
The chart represents an example of how the results should be represented to view any variation in the temperature variation plots easily. Cooking will always be achieved within the ‘denaturation (cooking) range’ while heating up to the ‘upper range for experiment’ is superfluous as denaturation for all proteins happens before 75 deg C (Curtis 1979). Image by author.
Experiment 2
Ceramic decoration
Aim
To create an experiment that can empirically offer some semblance of validation as to whether certain types of ceramic patterning are merely for decoration or can some patterning techniques represent more meaningful ritualistic or ideological symbolism.
Here I chose to investigate Lapita patterning (first found in the archaeological record ~100 years ago). This ceramic patterning style is recognized as an iconic representation of cultural diversity from Papua New Guinea to Samoa that lasted for at least 1,300 years between 4,000 Cal BP to 2,700Cal BP (Golson, 1961 p.176; Golson, 1971 p. 67; Green, 1979).
By analyzing samples from archaeological assemblages, I have established that there is a statistical correlation between dimensional ratios in patterning that supports an orthodoxy in the way some patterns were created.
Ceramic decoration
Aim
To create an experiment that can empirically offer some semblance of validation as to whether certain types of ceramic patterning are merely for decoration or can some patterning techniques represent more meaningful ritualistic or ideological symbolism.
Here I chose to investigate Lapita patterning (first found in the archaeological record ~100 years ago). This ceramic patterning style is recognized as an iconic representation of cultural diversity from Papua New Guinea to Samoa that lasted for at least 1,300 years between 4,000 Cal BP to 2,700Cal BP (Golson, 1961 p.176; Golson, 1971 p. 67; Green, 1979).
By analyzing samples from archaeological assemblages, I have established that there is a statistical correlation between dimensional ratios in patterning that supports an orthodoxy in the way some patterns were created.
|
Figure 44
The above image is of two dentate patterns separated by 1,300 km of ocean and possibly as much as 1,000 years. (a) Is from New Caledonia from Chiu (2015) while (b) is from Naitabale, Fiji from Nunn (2007). Image insert modification by the author. |
It can be demonstrated from figure 43 that the similarity is visually apparent. In fact, when I compared these two images regarding the empirically sound similarity, they were found to be very close indeed (P = 0.95). The plot below looks at equal dimensional ratios between similar points to the central circular marking.
|
Figure 45
In this plot I demonstrate the closeness of fit between the two samples. The coefficient of variability for (a) is 46% while that of (b) is 51% meaning only a 5% difference between the two. While the line plots indicate the closeness of fit between each sample. Chart by author. |
Given this representation of the patterning in the archaeology the author suggests a contemporary experiment that may add to the validity of the authors suggested orthodoxy hypothesis.
Method
The experiment is a straightforward one whereby 100 experienced potters are employed to make one stoneware tile each from a standard stock stoneware. The size of each tile is to be 224mm X 224mm by 9mm thick (these dimensions allow for kiln shrinkage of 12% so that the finished tiles will fit in a standard bathroom tile matrix). The potters are then asked to decorate the tiles using only their experience of artistic proportions; no measuring instruments are to be used. The decoration that they must copy is the following actual floral image of control tile 1.
|
Figure 46
The 100 potters are asked to scribe the outline of this image including the leaf mid-vane, it is not necessary to pay attention to the flower or leaf structure only the main outlines. Image by author. |
All the tiles are to be scribed by the potters paying attention to the main outlines only and including the leaf mid-vane.
The tiles will then be fired at the same temperature settings for the same amount of time (as per the requirements of stoneware firing).
Once the tiles have fully cooled several dimensional ratios will be checked and added to an EXCEL data set for analysis as per the following image.
The information will then be analyzed relative to the individual potters to establish which groups or which individuals fall into which order of proportionate copying accuracy.
The tiles will then be fired at the same temperature settings for the same amount of time (as per the requirements of stoneware firing).
Once the tiles have fully cooled several dimensional ratios will be checked and added to an EXCEL data set for analysis as per the following image.
The information will then be analyzed relative to the individual potters to establish which groups or which individuals fall into which order of proportionate copying accuracy.
Figure 47
This image of two tiles that I made exhibiting very close equivalent dimensions in production as they were made using a molding process with the only variation being ambient temperature during production, the same clay batch was used to make them. Also, they were fired together in a laboratory standard kiln. Image by author.
This image of two tiles that I made exhibiting very close equivalent dimensions in production as they were made using a molding process with the only variation being ambient temperature during production, the same clay batch was used to make them. Also, they were fired together in a laboratory standard kiln. Image by author.
Figure 48
This copy and paste from Excel shows accurately how the seven-dimensional ratios compare from the two almost identical tiles. The ratios were checked by my licensed copy of fingerprint comparison software, CSIpix. Note there is less than 1% variation in the CofV (0.93%) between the two samples. Excel by the author.
This copy and paste from Excel shows accurately how the seven-dimensional ratios compare from the two almost identical tiles. The ratios were checked by my licensed copy of fingerprint comparison software, CSIpix. Note there is less than 1% variation in the CofV (0.93%) between the two samples. Excel by the author.
The final data analysis will be as per the above data set for the two control tiles with tiles 1 to 100 (potters names) replacing the tile 1 and tile two in the above EXCEL printout. The control results suggest that even with all independent variables consistent there is an expected variation of at least 1%. Therefore, P = 0.06 would be the suggested target for a 94% risk of rejecting that the tiles prepared by the 100 potters are identical.
The principal characteristics to consider in this experiment are
Result analysis
I anticipate the result of this simple experiment to be a quite small difference in the Coefficient of Variation (CofV) suggesting that humans are generally, with a little experience, very good at accurately formulating a memory when it comes to visual perception based on proportions. I tend to think that the process is not necessarily one of positive recognition but eliminating an incorrect match. I could be incorrect, but that is what empirical investigation is all about, i.e., replacing one idea with another by using repeatable experimentation.
Because a result of a small C of V would also be indicative of orthodoxy in a contemporary group, it could also be suggested as the case in prehistory, the interesting thing about trying to analyze ideology from Lapita patterning is there really is no direct ethnographic analogy in existence anymore so experimental archaeology is the only tool we currently have to improve our view of the past as far as the practice is concerned.
The principal characteristics to consider in this experiment are
- The dimensions of the actual tiles are accurate.
- The tiles must be square to within 1%.
- No contemporary measuring tools can be used when creating the decoration outline.
- The stoneware clay must be from the same manufacturer.
- The potters are not to be informed of the experimental intentions.
Result analysis
I anticipate the result of this simple experiment to be a quite small difference in the Coefficient of Variation (CofV) suggesting that humans are generally, with a little experience, very good at accurately formulating a memory when it comes to visual perception based on proportions. I tend to think that the process is not necessarily one of positive recognition but eliminating an incorrect match. I could be incorrect, but that is what empirical investigation is all about, i.e., replacing one idea with another by using repeatable experimentation.
Because a result of a small C of V would also be indicative of orthodoxy in a contemporary group, it could also be suggested as the case in prehistory, the interesting thing about trying to analyze ideology from Lapita patterning is there really is no direct ethnographic analogy in existence anymore so experimental archaeology is the only tool we currently have to improve our view of the past as far as the practice is concerned.
Experiment 3
Soapstone characteristics as a function of temperature increase
Archaeological evidence suggests that Soapstone has been quarried for several thousand years. North American Indians of the North-eastern tribes used it for many purposes as early as 5000 BP. Examples of artefacts include bowls, cooking slabs, ornaments and smoking pipes to name a few. On the west coast of North America, it is suggested that inhabitants traveled the 96 Km from the mainland to what is now known as San Clemente Island to obtain soapstone for cooking bowls as early as 8000 BP (Hobart, 2002).
Scandinavian people were, during the Stone Age, using it for cooking utensils and this seems to have helped with their transition into the bronze age as it is thought that they discovered how it could be used for mold making to cast metal objects such as knife blades, spearheads, etc. It is also thought that these people may have been the first to discover soapstone’s capacity to radiate stored heat slowly, making it very useful for their cooking bowls, slabs, and hearth liners. Soapstone is thought to be the first type of rock to be quarried, and the areas of its outcropping are a testament to a distinctive paradigm of soapstone based ideological development (Hobart, 2002).
Soapstone characteristics as a function of temperature increase
Archaeological evidence suggests that Soapstone has been quarried for several thousand years. North American Indians of the North-eastern tribes used it for many purposes as early as 5000 BP. Examples of artefacts include bowls, cooking slabs, ornaments and smoking pipes to name a few. On the west coast of North America, it is suggested that inhabitants traveled the 96 Km from the mainland to what is now known as San Clemente Island to obtain soapstone for cooking bowls as early as 8000 BP (Hobart, 2002).
Scandinavian people were, during the Stone Age, using it for cooking utensils and this seems to have helped with their transition into the bronze age as it is thought that they discovered how it could be used for mold making to cast metal objects such as knife blades, spearheads, etc. It is also thought that these people may have been the first to discover soapstone’s capacity to radiate stored heat slowly, making it very useful for their cooking bowls, slabs, and hearth liners. Soapstone is thought to be the first type of rock to be quarried, and the areas of its outcropping are a testament to a distinctive paradigm of soapstone based ideological development (Hobart, 2002).
|
Figure 49
American Indians used soapstone boiling stones with holes for carrying from a fire to what is believed to have been rawhide lined cooking pits. Image courtesy of Hobart (2002). |
|
Figure 50
North American Indian soapstone cooking pots, these stones are evidenced to have been very successful because of their ability to withstand wood fires without cracking or exploding. Image courtesy of Hobart (2002). |
|
Figure 51
Inuit carving in traditional carving method of a female’s head. This is carved from Steatite, extremely fine-grained soapstone. Photo copyright iStockphoto / Pierre Chouinard. Image courtesy of Hobart (2002). |
|
Figure 52
A North American Indian smoking pipe with the tobacco burning component of soapstone … soapstone enable the pipe to withstand the tobacco burning temperature while the outside of the stone remained cool enough to hold while smoking. Image courtesy of Hobart (2002). |
Soapstone lends itself well to testing.
- It is quite lightweight wise compared to most other natural rock types.
- It is readily available as it is used as a “chalk” for metal workers. Soapstone comes in a nice standard size (usually in a stick form of 75mm long by 12mm square section).
- In its natural form it is incredibly soft on the MOH hardness scale … in fact it shares the lowest point on the hardness scale at MOH = 1 in its softest form.
This experimental design is to empirically investigate the character changes that occur as the stone is heated.
|
Figure 53
Soapstone sticks as sold in contemporary hardware stores. Used by metal workers as marking chalk. Image by the author. |
Method
Standard soapstone sticks of 75 mm X 12 mm X 12 mm will be heated to temperatures from 50 deg C to a total of 500 deg C in a laboratory oven for a period of 4 hours for each group of ten samples. On cooling to the ambient temperature, the sticks will then be subjected to tension and hardness testing to see if and by how much they transform compared to the natural state.
The sample size will be 100 sticks in total with 10 sticks in each temperature group.
The reason for the maximum temperature of 500 deg C is because at temperatures above this the stone can no longer be chemically described as soapstone as the chalk component is much reduced with the stone morphing into a serpentinite.
The soapstone samples in the experiment are high-talc soapstone of greater than 50% talc; they have a Moh’s hardness value of 1-2.5 under natural conditions (starting hardness for the experiment). The standard test for less than Mow = 2.5 is ‘able to be scratched with fingernails.’
Standard soapstone sticks of 75 mm X 12 mm X 12 mm will be heated to temperatures from 50 deg C to a total of 500 deg C in a laboratory oven for a period of 4 hours for each group of ten samples. On cooling to the ambient temperature, the sticks will then be subjected to tension and hardness testing to see if and by how much they transform compared to the natural state.
The sample size will be 100 sticks in total with 10 sticks in each temperature group.
The reason for the maximum temperature of 500 deg C is because at temperatures above this the stone can no longer be chemically described as soapstone as the chalk component is much reduced with the stone morphing into a serpentinite.
The soapstone samples in the experiment are high-talc soapstone of greater than 50% talc; they have a Moh’s hardness value of 1-2.5 under natural conditions (starting hardness for the experiment). The standard test for less than Mow = 2.5 is ‘able to be scratched with fingernails.’
Figure 54
List of independent and dependent variables after the means from each group of 10 has been calculated. Table by the author.
List of independent and dependent variables after the means from each group of 10 has been calculated. Table by the author.
Figure 55
Sample result charts for both tensile strength and Moh hardness as a function of temperature increase. Image by author.
Sample result charts for both tensile strength and Moh hardness as a function of temperature increase. Image by author.
Results analysis
I really have minimal idea as to what to expect from this experiment. My thoughts as to the usefulness of such an experiment came from the knowledge that soapstone shares characteristics with clay in that its molecular matrix tightens and strengthens with increased temperature up to a certain point. This information is not something I have formally come across but have been informed by experienced people that have observed it in the process of their occupation over many years of pottery workmanship.
From an archaeological perspective, whatever the result, it adds to how to interpret or re-interpret the prehistory assemblages we find. For example, if we find certain objects that correlate accurately with modified hardness and/or tensile strength characteristics they too would probably have had to be subjected to certain temperature modifications suggesting the producers of the objects were most likely aware of the need for controlled heat treatment to achieve intentionally specific results.
Discussion:
In all three experiments, I have tried to adhere to the idea that Popper suggested in 1934, i.e., putting together unique ideas that add to the creation of a universal rule (Popper, 2005). He also suggested that it is not possible to verify anything by induction, but we can at least suggest something is very probable until somebody comes up with more suitable evidence that disputes it. As far as experimental archaeology is concerned the use of induction is a minimal but significant tool to gradually chip away the metaphorical wall that separates the static assemblages from the dynamics of the past. To suggest we will one day know all the story of the Hominin journey factually is naïve indeed however experimental archaeology must gradually increase our understanding, but we need to be vigilant enough not to get too blaze in our thought processes. We must always keep in mind that we weren’t there.
I really have minimal idea as to what to expect from this experiment. My thoughts as to the usefulness of such an experiment came from the knowledge that soapstone shares characteristics with clay in that its molecular matrix tightens and strengthens with increased temperature up to a certain point. This information is not something I have formally come across but have been informed by experienced people that have observed it in the process of their occupation over many years of pottery workmanship.
From an archaeological perspective, whatever the result, it adds to how to interpret or re-interpret the prehistory assemblages we find. For example, if we find certain objects that correlate accurately with modified hardness and/or tensile strength characteristics they too would probably have had to be subjected to certain temperature modifications suggesting the producers of the objects were most likely aware of the need for controlled heat treatment to achieve intentionally specific results.
Discussion:
In all three experiments, I have tried to adhere to the idea that Popper suggested in 1934, i.e., putting together unique ideas that add to the creation of a universal rule (Popper, 2005). He also suggested that it is not possible to verify anything by induction, but we can at least suggest something is very probable until somebody comes up with more suitable evidence that disputes it. As far as experimental archaeology is concerned the use of induction is a minimal but significant tool to gradually chip away the metaphorical wall that separates the static assemblages from the dynamics of the past. To suggest we will one day know all the story of the Hominin journey factually is naïve indeed however experimental archaeology must gradually increase our understanding, but we need to be vigilant enough not to get too blaze in our thought processes. We must always keep in mind that we weren’t there.
Conclusion:
The three experimental designs of this paper have been carefully thought through regarding their do-ability in the real world. For experiment 1 I investigated the reality of sourcing spherical and cubic shaped basalt to the specifications that I have suggested and found that although it may be costly and time-consuming, there are organizations out there that can provide such items. The pot that I have suggested for this experiment is actually a stoneware pot from the inside of a contemporary slow cooker and would be ideally suited if somebody wanted to replicate the experiment. Also, the science behind the temperature correlations with protein denaturing is from peer-reviewed scientific literature so far validated.
The idea behind experiment 2 came about because of an earlier study that I carried out because of my skepticism of the way fingerprints are compared to this day based on only a subjective notion that ‘no two people are the same.’ This cannot be stated without validation by empirical evidence in my view. So, I came up with a method of calculating the risk of rejection of two fingerprints being from the same person. My calculation method can quite easily be reproduced then subsequently either rejected or accepted as with the two original tiles that are the control in this experiment. Regarding the employment of 100 potters to carry out the manufacture of the clay tiles, my thoughts were these individuals could be remotely sourced via either educational organizations such as TAFE students as part of their program or pottery club members willing to help with such an experiment.
The third experiment deals with the seemingly unique characteristics of soapstone that suggests it is dynamically responsive to relatively small increases in temperature in a similar way that clay is. I thought that if contemporary potters were aware of this fact then why should it not have occurred to prehistory technicians? This is probably the most natural experiment to carry out and/or repeat as the samples are readily available at hardware outlets.
Conclusion:
The three experimental designs of this paper have been carefully thought through regarding their do-ability in the real world. For experiment 1 I investigated the reality of sourcing spherical and cubic shaped basalt to the specifications that I have suggested and found that although it may be costly and time-consuming, there are organizations out there that can provide such items. The pot that I have suggested for this experiment is actually a stoneware pot from the inside of a contemporary slow cooker and would be ideally suited if somebody wanted to replicate the experiment. Also, the science behind the temperature correlations with protein denaturing is from peer-reviewed scientific literature so far validated.
The idea behind experiment 2 came about because of an earlier study that I carried out because of my skepticism of the way fingerprints are compared to this day based on only a subjective notion that ‘no two people are the same.’ This cannot be stated without validation by empirical evidence in my view. So, I came up with a method of calculating the risk of rejection of two fingerprints being from the same person. My calculation method can quite easily be reproduced then subsequently either rejected or accepted as with the two original tiles that are the control in this experiment. Regarding the employment of 100 potters to carry out the manufacture of the clay tiles, my thoughts were these individuals could be remotely sourced via either educational organizations such as TAFE students as part of their program or pottery club members willing to help with such an experiment.
The third experiment deals with the seemingly unique characteristics of soapstone that suggests it is dynamically responsive to relatively small increases in temperature in a similar way that clay is. I thought that if contemporary potters were aware of this fact then why should it not have occurred to prehistory technicians? This is probably the most natural experiment to carry out and/or repeat as the samples are readily available at hardware outlets.
The three experimental designs of this paper have been carefully thought through regarding their do-ability in the real world. For experiment 1 I investigated the reality of sourcing spherical and cubic shaped basalt to the specifications that I have suggested and found that although it may be costly and time-consuming, there are organizations out there that can provide such items. The pot that I have suggested for this experiment is actually a stoneware pot from the inside of a contemporary slow cooker and would be ideally suited if somebody wanted to replicate the experiment. Also, the science behind the temperature correlations with protein denaturing is from peer-reviewed scientific literature so far validated.
The idea behind experiment 2 came about because of an earlier study that I carried out because of my skepticism of the way fingerprints are compared to this day based on only a subjective notion that ‘no two people are the same.’ This cannot be stated without validation by empirical evidence in my view. So, I came up with a method of calculating the risk of rejection of two fingerprints being from the same person. My calculation method can quite easily be reproduced then subsequently either rejected or accepted as with the two original tiles that are the control in this experiment. Regarding the employment of 100 potters to carry out the manufacture of the clay tiles, my thoughts were these individuals could be remotely sourced via either educational organizations such as TAFE students as part of their program or pottery club members willing to help with such an experiment.
The third experiment deals with the seemingly unique characteristics of soapstone that suggests it is dynamically responsive to relatively small increases in temperature in a similar way that clay is. I thought that if contemporary potters were aware of this fact then why should it not have occurred to prehistory technicians? This is probably the most natural experiment to carry out and/or repeat as the samples are readily available at hardware outlets.
Cited references for Chapter 5:
Curtis, H., 1979. Biology, Worth, New York. Google Scholar. p. 84
Hobart, M. K., 2002. Soapstone: What is Soapstone? How Does It Form? How is it Used? Archetype Publications Ltd., pp.359-369. Retrieved from https://geology.com/rocks/soapstone.shtml
Nunn, P.D., Ishimura, T., Dickinson, W.R., Katayama, K., Thomas, F., Kumar, R., Matararaba, S., Davidson, J. and Worthy, T., 2007. The Lapita occupation at Naitabale, Moturiki Island, central Fiji. Asian Perspectives, pp.96-132.
Popper, K., 2005. The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Thoms, A.V., 2008. The fire stones carry: ethnographic records and archaeological expectations for hot-rock cookery in western North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 27(4), pp.443-460.
Chapter 6
The Near-East "Neolithic Revolution" (farming; Plant agriculture including domestication).
Complex cognition, especially the ability for hominins to be able to exploit ideas and materials to better plan for the future based on known cyclical characteristics within their environment is possibly a significant factor in the survival of the last living hominin Homo sapien. The first evidence of complex cognition among hominins is the creation and known use of stone tools as far back as ~2.60 million years (Semaw et al., 1997). Other behavioral activities could include the periodical use of fire that enhances young growth in plants encouraging the movement of prey animals into manageable territories that humans can then exploit for food. The use of fire to enhance plant re-generation is especially evidenced for prehistoric Australian indigenous people, however as yet, in need of more study to support the validity of its part as a survival strategy.
Fire use may have also been responsible in part for the improved efficacy of humans compared to other now-extinct hominins, e.g., the reduction of tooth size relative to body size compared to other primates including other hominins due to fire used for cooking enabling more efficient digestion together with reduction in potential disease prior to ideal methods of food storage (Smith 2018). This idea, however, is highly debated generally because Orang-utans (a close relative to humans) have also undergone much reduction in tooth size with a lesser enhanced evolved cognition as far as we are aware.
Notwithstanding stone tools and the use of fire, agriculture, plant and animal domestication are probably the most profound activities resulting specifically from Homo sapien cognitive ability.
Evidence suggests that it all started around 12,000 years ago as a transition from hunter-gathering by a small group of people gathering and progressively cultivating plants as a means of survival sustainability, the infancy of subsistence economies and ultimately civilization. The first evidence of this activity comes from the area we know as the Near East --- Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, western Syria, Turkey and, along with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, into Iraq and West of Iran. Agriculture and plant (and animal) domestication changed human culture profoundly. It allowed for a more sedentary lifestyle and the development of social stratification and ultimately, civilization. It is crucial for scholars to know where and when it all started so as to get an understanding of our past cultural, ideological paradigm. This report addresses the question of where and when the Neolithic Revolution came about. The effect transitioning to agriculture and plant domestication transformed the human journey and indeed its contribution to the survival of the species. To this aim, I exploit archaeological evidence together with genetic and other tools that have only become available over the last sixty years thereabouts.
Discussion
Given that all the evidence so far places the beginning of prehistoric farming (initially harvesting of wild stands) at ~12,000 years ago --- cultivation and domestication at an upper limit of ~10,000 years ago suggest that the only hominins involved were Homo sapiens because by this time there were no other hominins still surviving. The current literature tells us that our closest cousins from a common ancestor were Neandertal and Denisovans. Gokhman (2012) suggests that Homo sapiens split from the common ancestor of humans, Neandertal and Denisovans some 765,000-550,000 years ago. Denisovan left the scene completely ~75,000 years ago (Bower 2012) while Neandertal exited ~33,000-32,000 years ago at Vindija, Croatia (Smith et al., 1999). We, humans, now share some of our DNA (~2-4%) with both of these extinct hominins.
Before any prehistoric farming began, what is called the Fertile Crescent (see figure 1) of the Near East was rich in all of the essential natural resources for human survival. There were plenty of wild animals and plants available to supply the protein, nutritional and caloric demands necessary (Salamini et al., 2002).ck here to edit.
The Near-East "Neolithic Revolution" (farming; Plant agriculture including domestication).
Complex cognition, especially the ability for hominins to be able to exploit ideas and materials to better plan for the future based on known cyclical characteristics within their environment is possibly a significant factor in the survival of the last living hominin Homo sapien. The first evidence of complex cognition among hominins is the creation and known use of stone tools as far back as ~2.60 million years (Semaw et al., 1997). Other behavioral activities could include the periodical use of fire that enhances young growth in plants encouraging the movement of prey animals into manageable territories that humans can then exploit for food. The use of fire to enhance plant re-generation is especially evidenced for prehistoric Australian indigenous people, however as yet, in need of more study to support the validity of its part as a survival strategy.
Fire use may have also been responsible in part for the improved efficacy of humans compared to other now-extinct hominins, e.g., the reduction of tooth size relative to body size compared to other primates including other hominins due to fire used for cooking enabling more efficient digestion together with reduction in potential disease prior to ideal methods of food storage (Smith 2018). This idea, however, is highly debated generally because Orang-utans (a close relative to humans) have also undergone much reduction in tooth size with a lesser enhanced evolved cognition as far as we are aware.
Notwithstanding stone tools and the use of fire, agriculture, plant and animal domestication are probably the most profound activities resulting specifically from Homo sapien cognitive ability.
Evidence suggests that it all started around 12,000 years ago as a transition from hunter-gathering by a small group of people gathering and progressively cultivating plants as a means of survival sustainability, the infancy of subsistence economies and ultimately civilization. The first evidence of this activity comes from the area we know as the Near East --- Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, western Syria, Turkey and, along with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, into Iraq and West of Iran. Agriculture and plant (and animal) domestication changed human culture profoundly. It allowed for a more sedentary lifestyle and the development of social stratification and ultimately, civilization. It is crucial for scholars to know where and when it all started so as to get an understanding of our past cultural, ideological paradigm. This report addresses the question of where and when the Neolithic Revolution came about. The effect transitioning to agriculture and plant domestication transformed the human journey and indeed its contribution to the survival of the species. To this aim, I exploit archaeological evidence together with genetic and other tools that have only become available over the last sixty years thereabouts.
Discussion
Given that all the evidence so far places the beginning of prehistoric farming (initially harvesting of wild stands) at ~12,000 years ago --- cultivation and domestication at an upper limit of ~10,000 years ago suggest that the only hominins involved were Homo sapiens because by this time there were no other hominins still surviving. The current literature tells us that our closest cousins from a common ancestor were Neandertal and Denisovans. Gokhman (2012) suggests that Homo sapiens split from the common ancestor of humans, Neandertal and Denisovans some 765,000-550,000 years ago. Denisovan left the scene completely ~75,000 years ago (Bower 2012) while Neandertal exited ~33,000-32,000 years ago at Vindija, Croatia (Smith et al., 1999). We, humans, now share some of our DNA (~2-4%) with both of these extinct hominins.
Before any prehistoric farming began, what is called the Fertile Crescent (see figure 1) of the Near East was rich in all of the essential natural resources for human survival. There were plenty of wild animals and plants available to supply the protein, nutritional and caloric demands necessary (Salamini et al., 2002).ck here to edit.
|
Figure 56
The Fertile Crescent. The first evidenced location for human farming, cultivation, and domestication of plants and animals. |
Archaeological evidence suggests humans occupying the area of the Fertile Crescent were harvesting the wild, native forms of cereals prior to cultivation or domestication. It is not yet known as to why or exactly when the shift to cultivation and domestication happened. One possibility is an episode of arid and cold climate (~1,000 years) --- the Younger Dryas stadial (cooling period) of 12,900 – 11,100 cal BP (Bakke et al., 2009) limited the natural stands of cereals giving rise, during the following interstadial (climate warming) period to groups of individuals opting towards experimentation with agricultural practices (Salamini et al., 2002).
The Younger Dryas period of cooling was a result of freshwater pulses being released from ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere (Bakke et al., 2009). This event is termed “North Atlantic Meridional Overturning.” There has been a great deal of research into the ~ 1,000-year event, but at this stage, no absolute conclusion can be offered as to its effect on the transition of wild harvesting to cultivation and domestication.
In conversations regarding the origins of the agricultural practice, a distinction must be explained between cultivation and domestication. Cultivation means merely the planting of then harvesting of crop varieties whether wild or domesticated forms. Domestication, however, is individually selecting or discarding traits (genetic selection), transforming wild forms into domesticated forms that exhibit favorable traits for various reasons, e.g., high nutritional and/or caloric yield and long storage times.
The actual cause of the transition from harvesting to cultivation and domestication is little understood however it is well evidenced that the first agricultural experiments by humans produced a specific set of domesticated varieties of cereal. Different locations of today’s world still exploit many of these original forms.
The first human harvested cereals in the Near East
“Darwin recognized that thus far the civilization of mankind has passed through four successive stages of evolution, namely, those based on the use of fire, the development of agriculture, the development of urban life and the use of basic science for technological advancement."
— Frederick Seitz
Evidence for the first attempts at plant management dates back to ~13,000–12,000 cal BP, hundreds of years prior to any material evidence of morphological indicators of plant domestication. Humans were already modifying ecosystems locally and manipulating the bioecology so as to increase the availability of especially important plant species beneficient to contemporary economies (Weiss, Kislev, and Hartmann 2006; Willcox, Buxo´ , and Herveux 2009; Willcox, Fornite, and Herveux 2008). The first evidence of altered human morphology in a plant species in the near east is interestingly not a cereal but a tree species. At Gigal, Southern Levant, Kislev, Hartmann, and Bar-Yosef (2006a) published evidence of parthenocarpic wild fig cultivation. Parthenocarpic (seedless) fruits are produced with no natural or otherwise fertilization involve. Ovules are stimulated either chemically or physically so as to produce high yield fruit that is in itself infertile. The Gigal evidence for this activity dates to ~11,400-11,200 cal. BP. This is evidence for possibly the first attempt at more proper fruit production. The fruit is infertile however has a longer tree life and is sweeter to the pallet. Although this is an excellent example of initial success by humans to manipulate a food source, it must be pointed out that parthenocarpy is also known to occur naturally amongst female wild fig trees to some extent (Denham 2007; Lev-Yadun et al., 2006).
Generally, the consensus today to validate a plant species assemblage representing human agency is --- it must represent at least 10% of the archaeological sample in the area found (Tanno and Willcox 2006a; Weiss, Kislev, and Hartmann 2006).
Parthenocarpic wild fig data are elusive so it cannot be stated as absolute that the evidence for fig domestication was human-induced as many plants can have a relatively large proportion of naturally occurring parthenocarpic individuals. e.g., it is well known today that turnips can undergo natural parthenocarpic production at a rate of ~20%.
Cereals
Zeder (2011) suggested that the first cereal domestication may have occurred in the northern Levant during the Younger Dryas going by Hillman, Colledge, and Harris 1989. This idea was evidenced by a few large, seemingly domesticated grains of einkorn (Triticum monococcum cf. monococcum) and rye (Secale cf. cereal) from Epipaleolithic levels at Abu Hureyra (see figure 2). Although these grains did indeed come from a Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, 11,500 – c. 10,000 BP) level, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating suggested they were from 13,000 and 12,000 cal BP, therefore the earliest known domestic evidence of cereal domestication (Hillman 2000); but see Nesbitt 2002:118–119). The grain size of these samples is consistent in low numbers with those found in wild stands however they are so rare that the chance of finding them in archaeological context would be almost zero (Hillman 2000 p.382). There is however no contextual evidence of this very ancient cool-climate grain being culturally significant later. The warmer climatic conditions following the Younger Dryas suggests no further utilization beyond that period at Abu Hureyra in the Middle Euphrates area (Willcox, Fornite, and Herveux 2008).
|
Figure 57
This image shows the principal sites of early plant domestication mentioned in this essay (Willcox et al., 2008). |
More valid evidence of morphological selection domestication is not seen until ~10,500 cal. BP. This evidence is validated by a noticeable loss of wild cereal, natural dispersal mechanisms in einkorn, emmer, and barley. The sites where this is evidenced are Nevali C, or, Tell el Kerkh, Cayo “nu” and Cafer Hu “yo (Tanno and Willcox 2006a, b; Pasternak 1998; van Zeist and de Roller 1995).
This evidence is chiefly dominated by relatively large areas of well established morphological domestication of barley and emmer are between 10,000-9,001 cal BP (Nesbitt 2002).
Figure 58
This table is indicative of the Epipalaeolithic and Pre-pottery Neolithic periods Archaeobotanical record for cereals. The boxes (Blue, ###) indicate grain alone while the boxes (Red, ////) indicate chaff. Validation of barley status is not guaranteed unless identified by chaff, i.e., ? indicates uncertainty — abbreviations: EM (Emmer), EIN (Einkorn), BAR (Barley), NAK WHT (Free-Threshing, i.e., naked, wheat) and DOM (Domesticated). The Periodisation is chronological not necessarily cultural. Chart courtesy of Nesbitt (2002) with enhancement by the author.
This table is indicative of the Epipalaeolithic and Pre-pottery Neolithic periods Archaeobotanical record for cereals. The boxes (Blue, ###) indicate grain alone while the boxes (Red, ////) indicate chaff. Validation of barley status is not guaranteed unless identified by chaff, i.e., ? indicates uncertainty — abbreviations: EM (Emmer), EIN (Einkorn), BAR (Barley), NAK WHT (Free-Threshing, i.e., naked, wheat) and DOM (Domesticated). The Periodisation is chronological not necessarily cultural. Chart courtesy of Nesbitt (2002) with enhancement by the author.
Domestication, the importance of the first appearance.
It is essential that an accurate time can be allocated for the first appearance of indeed validated domestication in the human journey as this time frame represents the beginning of human-plant cultivation for wild plants., especially the wild ancestors of cereals. A knowledge of this time-frame arms us with the necessary starting point when looking for evidence of farming and agriculture as we know it today. E.g., if domestication is known to have occurred early in the Neolithic then our search should be in the Epipalaeolithic period; if later, we should be looking in the later Neolithic, say the Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, C. 9600-c. 8000 BP). The beginning of cultivation represents a definitive cognitive agency in human cultural evolution — a period of socio-cultural change based on a marked technological understanding by humans. The beginning of cultivation marks the real beginning of farming (agriculture) by our ancestors.
Figure 59
This histogram highlights the relative cereal domestication figures for the Near East. Although there is a variation between different areas, with the mean of 8450.83 years BP, the maximum at 9,250 BP is evidenced to be a valid starting point for farming/agriculture in the region given a coefficient of variation (C of V) of only 4.3%. This chart by the author based on information from figure 3, Nesbitt (2002).
This histogram highlights the relative cereal domestication figures for the Near East. Although there is a variation between different areas, with the mean of 8450.83 years BP, the maximum at 9,250 BP is evidenced to be a valid starting point for farming/agriculture in the region given a coefficient of variation (C of V) of only 4.3%. This chart by the author based on information from figure 3, Nesbitt (2002).
The histogram in figure 4 shows the mean values for years BP over 29 Near Eastern locations. These data are the midpoints of the upper and lower limits from the chart (figure 3) that suggest periods of between ~9,2500-7,200 years BP. The analysis of these data also suggests that the whole region made the transition from cultivating wild seeds to domestication at similar times given only a C of V of 4.3% across the mean values. Apparently, there were some exceptions, e.g., Turkey rates generally earlier than Israel in at least one pair of locations compared but the overall comparison puts all areas close enough to each other to be statistically at the same time.
Evidence for clearly defined cereal agricultural practices
The leading indicators supporting human’s cognitive intervention for more efficient cereal production is a combination of the analysis of plant dispersal mechanisms, mentioned earlier, and the morphological appearance of a more tough rachis is scaring due to mechanical disarticulation compared to that seen in the wild varieties (Jacomet 2006) . The latter is especially apparent in einkorn and emmer wheat. It is also a valid marker in what is described as two-rowed barley (Snir & Weiss 2014).
Rough rachis scaring as a result of threshing and other mechanical disarticulation, e.g., pounding, is a critical indicator of cereal (wheat and barley) domestication notwithstanding a small percentage, ~10% of wild stands exhibit some rough scaring (Kislev 1989).
|
Figure 60
This image shows two barley examples from Rosh Pina (32_5801100 N, 35_3201800 E, Collected 22.5.2011). A is the expectation of wild form while B is that of a possibly domesticated form based on the torn scar. Image from Snir & Weiss (2014). |
Although Snir & Weiss (2014) determined with a high probability that the lower rachis scaring method of determining whether archaeological assemblages of cereals are wild or domesticated is an extremely valid method, further support validating domestication can be by comparing dimensional ratios (see Figure 6). Wild cereal can be differentiated from the domestic form using longitudinal sections through rachises. The morphology of wild form scaring will produce uniform consistency across specimens while a rougher domesticated scar will show distinctly different results because of threshing or other mechanical agency. By comparing the width, height and area to the maximum scar width, one can differentiate between wild and domestic samples according to Snir & Weiss (2014).
Figure 61
This image is of the same samples from figure 5. I have calibrated the two samples based on the overall width of the rachis scar to further analyze for wild or domesticated verification. Image by the author calibrated in the author’s licensed CsiPix programme; a judicial system approved forensics fingerprint software.
This image is of the same samples from figure 5. I have calibrated the two samples based on the overall width of the rachis scar to further analyze for wild or domesticated verification. Image by the author calibrated in the author’s licensed CsiPix programme; a judicial system approved forensics fingerprint software.
In figure 61, I have calibrated the two images from figure 5 so that both images have an equivalent dimension as to the overall width of the ellipse representing the scar (see dotted lines). If one only considered the tear on image B one could suggest this as a domesticated form. However, on further evaluation when comparing the dimensional ratios of the two ellipses they both are in fact much more likely to be wild forms given that the C of V between the two is actually only 0.80% based on dimensional ratios, well within a probability based on 95% risk of rejecting the hypothesis that they are the same form, especially given that sample A is known to be a wild form. Below (figure 7) is the method that I used to compare the dimensional ratios.
Figure 62
Although this method of calculation is more fundamental than the probit model that Snir & Weiss (2014) used it actually compared two samples where one was known to be a wild form rather than using a Phi value of ‘normal’ expectation.
To further test my method it is necessary that the equation is carried out on much higher sample size, however, once a standardized C of V for the wild variety is established this method should prove very helpful in the future.
Although this method of calculation is more fundamental than the probit model that Snir & Weiss (2014) used it actually compared two samples where one was known to be a wild form rather than using a Phi value of ‘normal’ expectation.
To further test my method it is necessary that the equation is carried out on much higher sample size, however, once a standardized C of V for the wild variety is established this method should prove very helpful in the future.
Cereal distribution for both wild and domesticated varieties
If we revisit the information from figures 58 & 59, it is quite evident that the currently implied model developed in the early 1990s, of a domestication center evolving into rapid outward radiation of cereal domestication, cannot be stated with certainty. The more recent evidence favors a polycentric model (Gebel 2004). This model instead suggests that domestication was quite gradually adopted over a large area, taking several centuries. E.g., If one looks at the numbers from figure 3, Nevali Cori at Max 9,250 cal BP compares with Atlit-yam in Israel at 7,700 cal BP, a difference of some possible 1,550 years and 679 kilometers away while a second site in Israel, Nahal Hemar has cereal domestication between 9,200-8,100 cal BP and is only 168 Km from Atlit-yam, also in Israel? (see figure 7).
If we revisit the information from figures 58 & 59, it is quite evident that the currently implied model developed in the early 1990s, of a domestication center evolving into rapid outward radiation of cereal domestication, cannot be stated with certainty. The more recent evidence favors a polycentric model (Gebel 2004). This model instead suggests that domestication was quite gradually adopted over a large area, taking several centuries. E.g., If one looks at the numbers from figure 3, Nevali Cori at Max 9,250 cal BP compares with Atlit-yam in Israel at 7,700 cal BP, a difference of some possible 1,550 years and 679 kilometers away while a second site in Israel, Nahal Hemar has cereal domestication between 9,200-8,100 cal BP and is only 168 Km from Atlit-yam, also in Israel? (see figure 7).
Figure 63
This image shows the distance between Atlit-Yam (Domestication at 7,700 cal BP) to Nevali Cori (Domestication at 9,250 cal BP). A separation of possibly 1,550 years while 679 Km apart. Also Atlit-Yam to Nahal Hemar (both in Israel), with domestication separated by possibly 1,500 years cal BP while only 168 Km apart. It also indicates the marked separation between groups during PPNB & PPNC. Image courtesy of J.Becker. Image extracted from IPTC photo Metadata with added enhancement by me.
This image shows the distance between Atlit-Yam (Domestication at 7,700 cal BP) to Nevali Cori (Domestication at 9,250 cal BP). A separation of possibly 1,550 years while 679 Km apart. Also Atlit-Yam to Nahal Hemar (both in Israel), with domestication separated by possibly 1,500 years cal BP while only 168 Km apart. It also indicates the marked separation between groups during PPNB & PPNC. Image courtesy of J.Becker. Image extracted from IPTC photo Metadata with added enhancement by me.
Polycentric model for Near East plant domestication
Up until relatively recently, the 1990s, the general consensus regarding the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture in the Near East was initiated in one specific area, then merely radiated out to other areas. If you look at the chart (figure 59) and the map (figure 63), this hypothesis seems doubtful. In fact, the map figure 63 intuitively suggests 60 areas of domestication throughout PPNB & PPNC; this is also born out in the data of figures 58 & 59.
According to Wilcox (2005), Wild cereal distribution in the Near East is much the same today as it was during the 9th millennium BC (11,000-9,000 cal. BP) with the exception of the middle Euphrates valley. Communities initially chose the local wild cereal varieties, as would be expected, for cultivation leading later to domestication based on these wild varieties (Nesbitt 2002; Willcox 2002).
Figure 64
Image A (T. species are emmer wheat, H. species are barley) is the Near East wild stands today, while B is Domesticated stands during the ninth millennium BC (11,000-9,000 cal BP), based on upper abscission scar analysis. These images, I have size-calibrated and aligned — original Images from Wilkox, Fornite, and Herveux (2008), with enhancement by me.
Image A (T. species are emmer wheat, H. species are barley) is the Near East wild stands today, while B is Domesticated stands during the ninth millennium BC (11,000-9,000 cal BP), based on upper abscission scar analysis. These images, I have size-calibrated and aligned — original Images from Wilkox, Fornite, and Herveux (2008), with enhancement by me.
The archaeological evidence for the distribution of earliest domesticated cereal does not fully superimpose specifically to that of the wild-distribution map in many cases however is consistent enough to generally accept this hypothesis, see figure 7 for spatial separation of the domesticated.
Gebel (2004) suggests that the cultural evolution initiated by “real” farming based on my definition of plant domestication was polycentric and gradual over several centuries, not radiating from one source. He suggests that each was an independent evolutionary event driven by socioeconomic, symbolic interactions dominated by the natural conditions of specific regions with a time span or ~4,000 years from “12th – 8th millennium BC” (14,000-10,000 cal. BP). These independent transitions from hunter-gathering to farming were subject to many different opportunities and/or setbacks, hence the long time frame for the Neolithic Revolution trajectory. I tend to agree with this common-sense approach generally. However, the transition must have started somewhere and at some specific time. There must have been a human-cognition trigger. From the domestication data, this trigger happened somewhere in Upper Mesopotamia at around 9,250 cal. BP.
Both the single source then radiation, and the polycentric model of the Neolithic Revolution should be accepted as a dual synthesis model I believe. No single model is sufficient to explain the transition. 12th – 8th millennium BC
Conclusion
Hominin evolution can be traced back to ~>6 million (mya) years ago (Richmond, Aiello & Wood 2002). Somewhere between then and now, these groups of human-like individuals began a unique, cognition-based journey that probably enabled the survival of their genes to this day — the creation and use of stone tools. The first archaeological breakthrough as to this hypothesis came when in the 1960s, Mary and Louis Leakey came across stone tools dating back to 1.8 mya at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (East Africa). These tools were later described as belonging to Homo habilis, a close albeit distant cousin to ourselves (Nowell & Davison 2010). Later it was established that the earliest use of stone tools was at least 2.5 mya (Semaw 2000). For almost all of the time between then and now, stone tools were used sustainably as the basis of a hunter-gathering tradition amongst many different races of hominins including ourselves Homo sapiens. This changed dramatically around 13,000-12,000 years ago (kya) when evidence of modification and use of land suggested the gradual shift to a predominantly plant-based, subsistence-economies-based survival strategy (Hartmann, and Bar-Yosef 2006a; see also Weide et al., 2018 ). The Near-East is now evidenced as one of the earliest areas where farming (agriculture) as we know it today had its beginnings. This is evidenced to have occurred ~9,250 cal BP in Mesopotamia. The first domesticated plants were the cereals, specifically wheat and barley. The wild stands of these cereals still exist in the Near East much as they did prior to human agency domestication. How the archaeological assemblages talk to archaeologists is predominantly through a recognition of variation between wild varieties and domesticated ones mainly looking at specifically, two characteristics of upper abscission scars on rachis remains of i.e., rougher scars implying human agency (threshing and other mechanical processes) together with dimensional ratio characteristics of these scars---because the expectation of the wild plants will produce a unified coefficient of variation, a C of V varying from that is indicative of human agency. Weide et al., 2018 used a similar method comparing the weight of individual rachises based on a similar standardization C of V of the wild forms.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether the transition from hunter-gathering to farming was the result of a singular group of individuals than a radiation process to other areas or several groups beginning agriculture simultaneously. The statistics point to the latter with a mean starting point of 8,450.83 years ago and an earliest starting point of ~9,250 years ago, however, the transition had to have a human agency based starting point in time and place, So neither hypothesis can be rejected at this point in time I think.
The transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture is possibly the most important cultural change enabling the survival of our species. Humans survived in small numbers based on a small scale collective consciousness model for ~120,000 years before this event transitioned them into a massive scale collective consciousness model that completely altered sustainability and worldwide economies to this day. It could be argued that had we not chose this pathway we may not have avoided extinction.
Gebel (2004) suggests that the cultural evolution initiated by “real” farming based on my definition of plant domestication was polycentric and gradual over several centuries, not radiating from one source. He suggests that each was an independent evolutionary event driven by socioeconomic, symbolic interactions dominated by the natural conditions of specific regions with a time span or ~4,000 years from “12th – 8th millennium BC” (14,000-10,000 cal. BP). These independent transitions from hunter-gathering to farming were subject to many different opportunities and/or setbacks, hence the long time frame for the Neolithic Revolution trajectory. I tend to agree with this common-sense approach generally. However, the transition must have started somewhere and at some specific time. There must have been a human-cognition trigger. From the domestication data, this trigger happened somewhere in Upper Mesopotamia at around 9,250 cal. BP.
Both the single source then radiation, and the polycentric model of the Neolithic Revolution should be accepted as a dual synthesis model I believe. No single model is sufficient to explain the transition. 12th – 8th millennium BC
Conclusion
Hominin evolution can be traced back to ~>6 million (mya) years ago (Richmond, Aiello & Wood 2002). Somewhere between then and now, these groups of human-like individuals began a unique, cognition-based journey that probably enabled the survival of their genes to this day — the creation and use of stone tools. The first archaeological breakthrough as to this hypothesis came when in the 1960s, Mary and Louis Leakey came across stone tools dating back to 1.8 mya at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (East Africa). These tools were later described as belonging to Homo habilis, a close albeit distant cousin to ourselves (Nowell & Davison 2010). Later it was established that the earliest use of stone tools was at least 2.5 mya (Semaw 2000). For almost all of the time between then and now, stone tools were used sustainably as the basis of a hunter-gathering tradition amongst many different races of hominins including ourselves Homo sapiens. This changed dramatically around 13,000-12,000 years ago (kya) when evidence of modification and use of land suggested the gradual shift to a predominantly plant-based, subsistence-economies-based survival strategy (Hartmann, and Bar-Yosef 2006a; see also Weide et al., 2018 ). The Near-East is now evidenced as one of the earliest areas where farming (agriculture) as we know it today had its beginnings. This is evidenced to have occurred ~9,250 cal BP in Mesopotamia. The first domesticated plants were the cereals, specifically wheat and barley. The wild stands of these cereals still exist in the Near East much as they did prior to human agency domestication. How the archaeological assemblages talk to archaeologists is predominantly through a recognition of variation between wild varieties and domesticated ones mainly looking at specifically, two characteristics of upper abscission scars on rachis remains of i.e., rougher scars implying human agency (threshing and other mechanical processes) together with dimensional ratio characteristics of these scars---because the expectation of the wild plants will produce a unified coefficient of variation, a C of V varying from that is indicative of human agency. Weide et al., 2018 used a similar method comparing the weight of individual rachises based on a similar standardization C of V of the wild forms.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether the transition from hunter-gathering to farming was the result of a singular group of individuals than a radiation process to other areas or several groups beginning agriculture simultaneously. The statistics point to the latter with a mean starting point of 8,450.83 years ago and an earliest starting point of ~9,250 years ago, however, the transition had to have a human agency based starting point in time and place, So neither hypothesis can be rejected at this point in time I think.
The transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture is possibly the most important cultural change enabling the survival of our species. Humans survived in small numbers based on a small scale collective consciousness model for ~120,000 years before this event transitioned them into a massive scale collective consciousness model that completely altered sustainability and worldwide economies to this day. It could be argued that had we not chose this pathway we may not have avoided extinction.
Bibliography including cited and fresearched references
Bakke, J., Lie, Ø., Heegaard, E., Dokken, T., Haug, G.H., Birks, H.H., Dulski, P. and Nilsen, T., 2009. Rapid oceanic and atmospheric changes during the Younger Dryas cold period. Nature Geoscience, 2(3), p.202.
Bar-Yosef, O. and Kislev, M.E., 1989. Early farming communities in the Jordan Valley.
Bar-Yosef, O. and Meadow, R.H., 1995. The origins of agriculture in the Near East. Last hunters, first farmers: New perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture, pp.39-94.
Bower, B., 2012. Story one: Denisovan DNA reveals history of enigmatic group: Extinct Neandertal relative lived about 75,000 years ago. Science News, 182(6), pp.5-6.
C¸ ori PPNB, Turkey. In: Damania A, Valkoun J, Willcox G,
Finlayson, C., 2010. The humans who went extinct: Why Neanderthals died out and we survived. Oxford University Press.
Gebel, H.G.K., 2004. There was no centre: the polycentric evolution of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Neo-lithics, 1(04), pp.28-32.
Gokhman, D., Lavi, E., Prüfer, K., Fraga, M.F., Riancho, J.A., Kelso, J., Pääbo, S., Meshorer, E. and Carmel, L., 2014. Reconstructing the DNA methylation maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan. Science, p.1250368.
Hillman, G.C., Colledge, S.M., Harris, D.R. and Hillman, G.C., 1989. Foraging and farming. The Evo.
ICARDA, Aleppo (Syria), pp 170–177
Jacomet, S., 2006. Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites. Basel University, Basel.
Lawrence, D., Philip, G., Hunt, H., Snape-Kennedy, L. and Wilkinson, T.J., 2016. Long )term population, city size and climate trends in the Fertile Crescent: A first approximation. PloS one, 11(3), p.e0152563.
Nesbitt, M., 2002. When and where did domesticated cereals first occur in southwest Asia. The dawn of farming in the Near East, 6, pp.113-32.
Nesbitt, T.C. and Tanksley, S.D., 2002. Comparative sequencing in the genus Lycopersicon: implications for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of cultivated tomatoes. Genetics, 162(1), pp.365-379.
Nowell, A. and Davidson, I. eds., 2010. Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition (pp. 67-82). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Pasternak R (1998) Investigations of botanical remains from Nevali
Qualset C (eds) The origins of agriculture and crop domestication.
Richmond, B.G., Aiello, L.C. and Wood, B.A., 2002. Early hominin limb proportions. Journal of Human Evolution, 43(4), pp.529-548.
Salamini, F., Özkan, H., Brandolini, A., Schäfer-Pregl, R. and Martin, W., 2002. Genetics and geography of wild cereal domestication in the near east. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(6), p.429.
Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J.W., Feibel, C.S., Bernor, R.L., Fesseha, N. and Mowbray, K., 1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature, 385(6614), p.333.
Smith, T.M., 2018. The Tales Teeth Tell: Development, Evolution, Behavior. MIT Press.
Snir, A. and Weiss, E., 2014. A novel morphometric method for differentiating wild and domesticated barley through intra-rachis measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science, 44, pp.69-75.
Stewart, J.R., 2007. Neanderthal extinction as part of the faunal change in Europe during Oxygen Isotope Stage 3. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia-Series A: Vertebrata, 50(1-2), pp.93-124.
Tanno, K.I. and Willcox, G., 2006. How fast was wild wheat domesticated?. Science, 311(5769), pp.1886-1886.
Tanno, K.I. and Willcox, G., 2006. The origins of cultivation of Cicer arietinum L. and Vicia faba L.: early finds from Tell el-Kerkh, north-west Syria, late 10th millennium BP. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 15(3), pp.197-204.
van Zeist, W. and de Roller, G.J., 1995. Plant remains from Asikli Höyük, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 4(3), pp.179-185.
Weide, A., Riehl, S., Zeidi, M. and Conard, N.J., 2018. A systematic review of wild grass exploitation in relation to emerging cereal cultivation throughout the Epipalaeolithic and aceramic Neolithic of the Fertile Crescent. PloS one, 13(1), p.e0189811.
Willcox, G., 2005. The distribution, natural habitats and availability of wild cereals in relation to their domestication in the Near East: multiple events, multiple centres. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 14(4), pp.534-541.
Willcox, G., Fornite, S. and Herveux, L., 2008. Early Holocene cultivation before domestication in northern Syria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17(3), pp.313-325.
Zeder, M.A., 2011. The origins of agriculture in the Near East. Current Anthropology, 52(S4), pp.S221-S235.
Chapter 7
Fire domestication by hominins including humans
The first controlled use of fire by our ancestors is a fundamentally profound question as the answer represents an extraordinary achievement for the cognitive ability in the Hominin/Human evolutionary journey. Unfortunately, it is a puzzle that is very difficult to solve empirically, given the ephemeral nature of fire that at best, leaves only little trace-evidence of its occurrence. Empirical evidence needs to be associated with other contextually validated association with hominins, e.g., stone tools. The first convincing evidence of stone tool fabrication and use by hominins goes back ~2.58-2.10 mya at Gona in Ethiopia (Semaw et al., 1997). This evidence is also contextually associated with Hominin-agency meat processing. Based on this substantially validated evidence, 2.60 mya could be suggested as the very earliest hypothesized starting point for the search notwithstanding evidence becoming available from an even earlier time. There are substantial data suggesting that now extinct hominins, e.g., Homo erectus was adapted as early as 1.90 mya, to a diet of cooked food according to Wrangham’s “cooking hypothesis’. However, this hypothesis is not backed by any contextual evidence (so far) of H. erectus and fire control at this early period.
Because of either the lack of or dubious nature of the evidence the current consensus of validated hominin agency fire-use is at most 1.50 Mya (Berna et al., 2012).
To better focus on the more reliable time frame i.e., during the Acheulian period (~1.76–0.13 Mya), ~1.50 mya at Swartkrans (Brain and Sillen 1988), 0.78 mya Zhoukoudian (Ciochon & Bettis; Shen et al., 2009) and at a more recent time there is unequivocal evidence from 0.40 mya in at Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa (Beaumont 2011; Berna et al., 2012).
Notwithstanding new evidence, this report is now narrowed down to a time frame of ~1.10 Million years in which to come up with a likely starting point. There are two questions this report asks:
1 a&b; When did controlled-fire begin and by whom based on the best-validated evidence?
2 a&b; What evolutionary value can be attributed to this innovation and at what cost?
Honing in on a valid period is essential in relation to defining the evolutionary paradigm relative to the environment that either enabled or compromised the ongoing survival of our common ancestor/ancestors and indeed our own species Homo sapien, now the only living hominin survivor.
Discussion
Who was first?
When one studies the available data regarding the hominin evolutionary timeline (see figures 1a & 1b) and the fact that, to date, 1.5-0.4 mya is the period suggested, realistically as the initiation of fire domestication (see figure 2)---it appears most likely that the first hominin to control fire was Homo erectus. H. erectus people were the only Homo to have existed throughout that whole period notwithstanding a relatively shorter period whereby H. heidelbergensis coexisted. Also, if the evidence from Zhoukoudian is correct at 0.78 Mya (Ciochon & Bettis; Shen et al., 2009) not 0.50 Mya as first thought, then it is even more likely to have been H. erectus. The evidence for H. erectus at Zhoukoudian is now compelling however there is ongoing debate as to the validity of controlled fire use. The initial hypothesis was based on the existence of large ash layers within the cave---unfortunately, the lack of contextual Homo evidence relative to the ash layers reduces the credibility of the hypothesis. Researchers in the 1990s, while testing soil sample signature methods found that burnt bone was only very rarely found in context with tools (Weiner et al., 1998). Also, it turned out that the so-called ash layers were found not to ash at all, but an accumulation of organic matter pointing to the compelling possibility that at this time H. erectus was actually not hunting but scavenging the leftovers of other predators, e.g., Giant hyenas (Boaz & Ciochon 2001).
With this in mind, I take the investigation to the Swartkrans and Wonderwerk Cave sites as mentioned in the introduction.
Fire domestication by hominins including humans
The first controlled use of fire by our ancestors is a fundamentally profound question as the answer represents an extraordinary achievement for the cognitive ability in the Hominin/Human evolutionary journey. Unfortunately, it is a puzzle that is very difficult to solve empirically, given the ephemeral nature of fire that at best, leaves only little trace-evidence of its occurrence. Empirical evidence needs to be associated with other contextually validated association with hominins, e.g., stone tools. The first convincing evidence of stone tool fabrication and use by hominins goes back ~2.58-2.10 mya at Gona in Ethiopia (Semaw et al., 1997). This evidence is also contextually associated with Hominin-agency meat processing. Based on this substantially validated evidence, 2.60 mya could be suggested as the very earliest hypothesized starting point for the search notwithstanding evidence becoming available from an even earlier time. There are substantial data suggesting that now extinct hominins, e.g., Homo erectus was adapted as early as 1.90 mya, to a diet of cooked food according to Wrangham’s “cooking hypothesis’. However, this hypothesis is not backed by any contextual evidence (so far) of H. erectus and fire control at this early period.
Because of either the lack of or dubious nature of the evidence the current consensus of validated hominin agency fire-use is at most 1.50 Mya (Berna et al., 2012).
To better focus on the more reliable time frame i.e., during the Acheulian period (~1.76–0.13 Mya), ~1.50 mya at Swartkrans (Brain and Sillen 1988), 0.78 mya Zhoukoudian (Ciochon & Bettis; Shen et al., 2009) and at a more recent time there is unequivocal evidence from 0.40 mya in at Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa (Beaumont 2011; Berna et al., 2012).
Notwithstanding new evidence, this report is now narrowed down to a time frame of ~1.10 Million years in which to come up with a likely starting point. There are two questions this report asks:
1 a&b; When did controlled-fire begin and by whom based on the best-validated evidence?
2 a&b; What evolutionary value can be attributed to this innovation and at what cost?
Honing in on a valid period is essential in relation to defining the evolutionary paradigm relative to the environment that either enabled or compromised the ongoing survival of our common ancestor/ancestors and indeed our own species Homo sapien, now the only living hominin survivor.
Discussion
Who was first?
When one studies the available data regarding the hominin evolutionary timeline (see figures 1a & 1b) and the fact that, to date, 1.5-0.4 mya is the period suggested, realistically as the initiation of fire domestication (see figure 2)---it appears most likely that the first hominin to control fire was Homo erectus. H. erectus people were the only Homo to have existed throughout that whole period notwithstanding a relatively shorter period whereby H. heidelbergensis coexisted. Also, if the evidence from Zhoukoudian is correct at 0.78 Mya (Ciochon & Bettis; Shen et al., 2009) not 0.50 Mya as first thought, then it is even more likely to have been H. erectus. The evidence for H. erectus at Zhoukoudian is now compelling however there is ongoing debate as to the validity of controlled fire use. The initial hypothesis was based on the existence of large ash layers within the cave---unfortunately, the lack of contextual Homo evidence relative to the ash layers reduces the credibility of the hypothesis. Researchers in the 1990s, while testing soil sample signature methods found that burnt bone was only very rarely found in context with tools (Weiner et al., 1998). Also, it turned out that the so-called ash layers were found not to ash at all, but an accumulation of organic matter pointing to the compelling possibility that at this time H. erectus was actually not hunting but scavenging the leftovers of other predators, e.g., Giant hyenas (Boaz & Ciochon 2001).
With this in mind, I take the investigation to the Swartkrans and Wonderwerk Cave sites as mentioned in the introduction.
Figure 65
This figure shows the “start range for Hominin fire domestication” estimated from the evidence so far. Image courtesy of public access Google.images with textual modification by.
This figure shows the “start range for Hominin fire domestication” estimated from the evidence so far. Image courtesy of public access Google.images with textual modification by.
Figure 66
This figure gives the H.erectus distribution including the so-far, dates of occupation. It also indicates the location, in red, of Wonderwerk Cave, the earliest so far evidenced location validating hominin fire domestication. Image courtesy of public access Google.images with textual modification by me.
This figure gives the H.erectus distribution including the so-far, dates of occupation. It also indicates the location, in red, of Wonderwerk Cave, the earliest so far evidenced location validating hominin fire domestication. Image courtesy of public access Google.images with textual modification by me.
Figure 67
Map of most hominin suggested fire control sites including dates for 1.5 to 0.37 mya. See also figure 5. Image courtesy of Attwell 2015.
Map of most hominin suggested fire control sites including dates for 1.5 to 0.37 mya. See also figure 5. Image courtesy of Attwell 2015.
Swartkrans in South Africa is possibly the first region where hominin fire control is hypothesized contextually. At this site, especially Member 3, Brain’s 1984 study found that 270 bones out of a total of 59,488 were evidenced conclusively to be fire charred in context with hominin activity at an estimated, by Brain himself, to be during the period more than 1 mya (Member 1 at 1.80 mya). It is interesting that the contextual hominin with the charred bone assemblage is a robust australopithecine, Paranthropus robustus (Pickering, 2001). i.e., a single individual represented by a calcined distal second phalanx, SKX 35822. This bone element has been approximated at 1.8 Myr BP (Susman 1989). H. erectus and H. habillis are also suggested as being present in the area during the period previously mentioned although there is so far no conclusive evidence of association with the fire activity at Swartkrans (Anton 2003).
Figure 68
This image is Brain’s 1984 study MNI (minimum number of individuals) represented in context with hominin fire control at Swartkrans. Image from Brain (1993) with textual modification by me.
This image is Brain’s 1984 study MNI (minimum number of individuals) represented in context with hominin fire control at Swartkrans. Image from Brain (1993) with textual modification by me.
One sobering speculation on offer by myself is that H. erectus could be responsible for the fire-control activity with P.robustus being part of the food assemblage. However, this is purely speculative based on the absence of H. erectus skeletal evidence within the assemblage. Because H. erectus was known to have been in coexistence with P. robustus, I would not have expected skeletal remains within the cave complex if H. erectus is the hominin controlling the fire activities. It is essential to look for evidence of hominin end-of-life procedures and symbolism to further validate why hominin remains are in the cave in the first place.
Wonderwerk Cave (27° 50′ 44.7″ S, 023° 33′ 12.3″ E, see figure 2)---so far the most likely beginning site of hominin fire domestication is situated in South Africa not far from the previous discussion location of Swartkrans. It represents the most validated evidence of hominin controlled the fire so far at a period of ~1.10-1.00 mya based on various isotope dating systems and including calibration from Jaramillo Subchron polarity reversal 1.06-0.90 Mya (see figure 4), (Berna et al., 2012). The most convincing evidence for hominin attributed fire control at Wonderwerk Cave, Acheulean stratum 10, is the presence, 30 meters in from the entrance, of well-preserved ashes, empirically determined by microstratigraphic investigation methods (Berna et al., 2012) to be from small-plant materials and including bones that have undergone burning at temperatures not exceeding 700 deg C, typical of small fires of grasses, leaves, and small twigs. Macroscopic burned bone fragments together with many ironstone manuports (microstratigraphic evidence of in-situ fire) are exhibiting potlid fracturing to lithic material, and fire-heated sediment further supports the suggestion of many controlled burning events within the cave. Stratum 9 and 10 inclusive represents a period of ~100,000 years with the controlled burning (stratum 10) around half of that period, i.e., 50,000 years. The stratum 10 episodes are so far the most convincing in regard to hominin fire control. However, there is possibly evidence of controlled fire activity also, within stratum 12 at 1.70-1.96 Mya (see figure 4), (Horwitz & Chazan 2015).
Wonderwerk Cave (27° 50′ 44.7″ S, 023° 33′ 12.3″ E, see figure 2)---so far the most likely beginning site of hominin fire domestication is situated in South Africa not far from the previous discussion location of Swartkrans. It represents the most validated evidence of hominin controlled the fire so far at a period of ~1.10-1.00 mya based on various isotope dating systems and including calibration from Jaramillo Subchron polarity reversal 1.06-0.90 Mya (see figure 4), (Berna et al., 2012). The most convincing evidence for hominin attributed fire control at Wonderwerk Cave, Acheulean stratum 10, is the presence, 30 meters in from the entrance, of well-preserved ashes, empirically determined by microstratigraphic investigation methods (Berna et al., 2012) to be from small-plant materials and including bones that have undergone burning at temperatures not exceeding 700 deg C, typical of small fires of grasses, leaves, and small twigs. Macroscopic burned bone fragments together with many ironstone manuports (microstratigraphic evidence of in-situ fire) are exhibiting potlid fracturing to lithic material, and fire-heated sediment further supports the suggestion of many controlled burning events within the cave. Stratum 9 and 10 inclusive represents a period of ~100,000 years with the controlled burning (stratum 10) around half of that period, i.e., 50,000 years. The stratum 10 episodes are so far the most convincing in regard to hominin fire control. However, there is possibly evidence of controlled fire activity also, within stratum 12 at 1.70-1.96 Mya (see figure 4), (Horwitz & Chazan 2015).
Figure 69
This image shows the evidenced periods and stratum for both the “in situ” fire control evidenced to be hominin controlled burning events and the “burnt fauna” events from a much earlier time. Image courtesy of Howitz & Chazan (2015) with additional highlighting by me.
This image shows the evidenced periods and stratum for both the “in situ” fire control evidenced to be hominin controlled burning events and the “burnt fauna” events from a much earlier time. Image courtesy of Howitz & Chazan (2015) with additional highlighting by me.
The invisible, Phantom, hearths of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (GBY)
Jumping forward a little we come to a site that fits well with ambitious experimental archaeology, i.e., Gesher Benot Ya’aqov at paleo-Lake Hula, Israel.
The archaeological assemblage base is between ~814 Kya-761 Kya evidenced by oxygen isotope stage technology (MIS/OIS 18-20). The stratigraphic sequence lasts 100,000 years evidenced by its duration end at the back-to-normal polarity shift, the Matuyama-Bruhnes chron Boundary (MBB) of 0.79 Mya (Alperson 2008).
This site can be in some regard, a simple correlation between hominin cognition and spatial distribution of microartefacts that are non randomly assembled around valid evidence of small in-situ fires. The micro artefacts are the result of hominin flint knapping. The smallest artefacts, both burned and unburned occupy small spaces while unburned larger ones are scattered less densely and more evenly away from the smaller burnt and unburnt assemblages. The risk of rejecting the hypothesis Ho ‘the two spatial distributions are statistically different’ is 99.90% (p < 0.001), (Alperson 2008).
Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (GBY) constitutes the most conclusive evidence of controlled, habitual, hominin fire use however it is necessary to investigate what is meant by Controlled use, habitual use?
Figure 70
This table shows the most compelling evidence of controlled, habitual use of fire that is clearly contextual with hominin activity in the middle Pleistocene period. See also figure 2 for localities. Tabled by me.
This table shows the most compelling evidence of controlled, habitual use of fire that is clearly contextual with hominin activity in the middle Pleistocene period. See also figure 2 for localities. Tabled by me.
When did hominins start their own fires?
There is a chicken or the egg scenario happening here. Was improved cognition necessary for hominins to work out how to start fires or did fire starting improve the efficacy of brain development?
Somewhere between 750-200 kya, the ancestral human brain began to increase in size (Calvin 2004: 45-50). Fire control is a likely catalyst for this process. Or at least played a significant role. This time period correlates with the controlled, habitual use of fire. It makes sense that as far as cognition is concerned relative to the survival of the hominin---human genome; using and maintaining a fire was equally as important as the future ability to develop ignition technologies. I believe it is also crucial that contemporary researchers are not duped by existentialism, in insisting that human cognition was necessary for fire ignition technology. Hominins of the middle Pleistocene period, prior to Homo sapiens, the period of fire domestication, were subjected to a predominantly icy period. Methods of warming, fire controlled food processing, and obtaining attire for maintaining life sustaining body temperature would have been essential. It is very likely that these ancestral hominins harnessed and transported naturally occurring fires for this purpose (see figure 6).
The evidence for hominin agency fire becomes much more evident and convincing after 400 kya. Changes in the frequent use of fire seem to indicate that hominins at this time could start fires at will. There were increasing demands on hominin’s survival techniques during this time of more relaxed conditions, e.g., the costs involved with maintaining body heat and the nutritional, caloric demands of larger brains. Fire technology would have been a necessary component of the strategies adopted. Neandertals obviously managed to deal with these colder conditions very adequately long before H. sapiens came on the scene. Neandertal fire use is well documented while exhibiting no variation to the later fire usage evidence contextual with H. sapiens. H. sapiens were undoubtedly evolved cold adaptations based on solutions developed by previous (H. erectus) and, in the case 0f Neandertal, coexisting hominins.
. The genes for Those that did not adopt this behavior would probably not survive many generations I think. It is very likely that ancestral hominins developed ignition technology prior to the speciation of Homo sapiens. We will probably never know the answer to this puzzle.
Lightning strike controlled fire
If we look at figure 5, it is quite evident that there is a correlation between the periods of known hominin fire control and lightning strike statistics if one assumes these statistics have been relatively constant over the last million years (uniformitarianism). Hominin fire control 2-1 mya was always in the areas of the most strikes whereas the most recent hominin fire use is in areas of much-reduced strikes; suggesting ignition technologies began around or after 500 kya.
If we look at figure 5, it is quite evident that there is a correlation between the periods of known hominin fire control and lightning strike statistics if one assumes these statistics have been relatively constant over the last million years (uniformitarianism). Hominin fire control 2-1 mya was always in the areas of the most strikes whereas the most recent hominin fire use is in areas of much-reduced strikes; suggesting ignition technologies began around or after 500 kya.
Figure 71
This image indicates the frequency of lightning strikes in the areas of evidenced fire domestication. The darker the area, the higher the strike frequency. Notice the early to recent dates correlates with the frequency of strikes in all cases known so far with the Israel site questionable. Image courtesy of Twomey (2011).
This image indicates the frequency of lightning strikes in the areas of evidenced fire domestication. The darker the area, the higher the strike frequency. Notice the early to recent dates correlates with the frequency of strikes in all cases known so far with the Israel site questionable. Image courtesy of Twomey (2011).
With this information in mind and the well-evidenced fire control literature as figure 5 suggests; all areas from Zhoukoudian, China down to Misliya are candidates for the first hominin-lit fires. Although, Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel contradicts this hypothesis suggesting more evidence is required as to how these in-situ fires came about given their frequency and distant from potential lightning strike areas.
There really is no valid evidence to support when hominins could create their own fires. The evidence does, however, suggest that there was a long period where fires were created by harnessing, transporting, and maintaining natural fires, in most cases, lightning strikes. What is essential is that fire control changed the way hominins thought. Fire control put demands on the working memory capacity in a way that hunting and tool making would not. Fires control necessitated extended periods of attention. The fires had to be tended throughout day and night necessitating group cooperation. Gathering fuel was a chore requiring future planning strategies that the group could collectively comprehend. Fires bound the group by being central to shared activities as empirically evidenced at the Gesher Benot Ya’aqov at the Paleo-Lake site where the fire was central to group tool-making and food preparation episodes.
Fire control evidence for Homo sapiens in Australia
Fires that are actually started by hominin agency I call anthropogenic fires. These fires require the forethought and production of ignition-technology tools. As far as we know, Australian indigenous people arrived on the large island ~65 kya possibly already in possession of these tools or at least the know-how to produce them.
The tools that dominate ignition technology by Australian indigenous people are the hand drill, fire saw. There is also what is called a bow-drill that is adapted from the hand, fire-drill.
Figure 72
An aboriginal fire hand-drill in use. This was and is widely distributed on mainland Australia and Tasmania. It is quite simply one piece of stick. Usually Quandong, rotated by hand on another piece of wood in the presence of dry, burnable material. It is likely that this tool kit was brought with the earliest Australians as it represents one of the most ancient of the ignition tools in many other parts of the world. Image downloaded from free access Aboriginal culture website www.aboriginalculture.com.au
An aboriginal fire hand-drill in use. This was and is widely distributed on mainland Australia and Tasmania. It is quite simply one piece of stick. Usually Quandong, rotated by hand on another piece of wood in the presence of dry, burnable material. It is likely that this tool kit was brought with the earliest Australians as it represents one of the most ancient of the ignition tools in many other parts of the world. Image downloaded from free access Aboriginal culture website www.aboriginalculture.com.au
Figure 73
A real example of the fire saw. It is made from Quandong wood. The main piece is a curved, split item strung end-to-end with fiber, notched twice in the center. This piece is opened to allow kindling between the sticks. It is held to the ground by four pegs while the other piece, a knife-like object is used as a friction-induced fire producer by rubbing in one of the grooves. The image courtesy of the Museum of Applied Arts & Science https://ma.as/90046
A real example of the fire saw. It is made from Quandong wood. The main piece is a curved, split item strung end-to-end with fiber, notched twice in the center. This piece is opened to allow kindling between the sticks. It is held to the ground by four pegs while the other piece, a knife-like object is used as a friction-induced fire producer by rubbing in one of the grooves. The image courtesy of the Museum of Applied Arts & Science https://ma.as/90046
Across the globe, there is no valid evidence from antiquity of any early hominins being in possession of technology to start fires from scratch. Australian indigenous people, however, it seems, have always had at least one method of doing so, i.e., the fire drill. These people are also the only ones evidenced to have all three of the above-mentioned technologies at one time or another across the many tribal groups. It is not known as to when Australian indigenous people first started producing fire themselves however it was probably at or very soon after their arrival in Australia ~65 kya.
Figure 74
This image shows where the various fire making tools have been evidenced to exist as at 1947 at least. Notice that the Fire-drill was known in every state and territory whereas the fire-saw, also widespread, is mostly away from the coast except for Western Australia. Evidence of the Fire-plow is limited to North-West Western Australia. Image courtesy Davidson (1947).
This image shows where the various fire making tools have been evidenced to exist as at 1947 at least. Notice that the Fire-drill was known in every state and territory whereas the fire-saw, also widespread, is mostly away from the coast except for Western Australia. Evidence of the Fire-plow is limited to North-West Western Australia. Image courtesy Davidson (1947).
The efficiency in which Australian indigenous people have been recorded producing fire using the Fire-stick method is quite amazing, e.g., 26 seconds according to Love in a 1936 experiment---i.e., 20% of the time taken by the nearest competitor, The Thompson Indians.
The Martu people
As I embark on this section of the essay, it is very early in the morning of Australia Day, 26th January 2019. The anniversary of the day in 1788 we, all Australians, can reflect on the wealth this magical, resource-full land; full of unique and beautiful fauna and flora offers and has shared with all of us. Most importantly, however. None of this could have been possible if it was not for the prior ~65,000 years of custodianship and resource management by Australia’s first nation people. These people, the oldest and longest known collective of H. sapiens culture, ideology, lived in relative harmony for all of the time mentioned with no compromisation to the ecological integrity of this beautiful place. What part did anthropogenic fire control play in this story?
The Matu people of remote desert regions in Western Australia utilize and shape their habitats by the use of small scale, patch mosaic fire-disturbance burning resulting in a reduction of inefficient and unnecessary excess mobility, higher yield hunting return of small animals for food, etc., reduced interforager harvest variability. All activities are leading to facilitated group ownership. This kind of activities are suggested as the precursor prerequisites for farming and the conditions resulting in what is suggested as the Anthropocene, i.e., the H. sapiens favorably, efficiently modified environment (Bird et al., 2016).
The Martu people
As I embark on this section of the essay, it is very early in the morning of Australia Day, 26th January 2019. The anniversary of the day in 1788 we, all Australians, can reflect on the wealth this magical, resource-full land; full of unique and beautiful fauna and flora offers and has shared with all of us. Most importantly, however. None of this could have been possible if it was not for the prior ~65,000 years of custodianship and resource management by Australia’s first nation people. These people, the oldest and longest known collective of H. sapiens culture, ideology, lived in relative harmony for all of the time mentioned with no compromisation to the ecological integrity of this beautiful place. What part did anthropogenic fire control play in this story?
The Matu people of remote desert regions in Western Australia utilize and shape their habitats by the use of small scale, patch mosaic fire-disturbance burning resulting in a reduction of inefficient and unnecessary excess mobility, higher yield hunting return of small animals for food, etc., reduced interforager harvest variability. All activities are leading to facilitated group ownership. This kind of activities are suggested as the precursor prerequisites for farming and the conditions resulting in what is suggested as the Anthropocene, i.e., the H. sapiens favorably, efficiently modified environment (Bird et al., 2016).
Figure 75
This simplified representation shows how anthropogenic modification, e.g., fire-stick burning increases ecological patchiness and habitat heterogeneity, resource storage incentive, at a reduced cost of mobility. Image from Bird et al., 2016.
This simplified representation shows how anthropogenic modification, e.g., fire-stick burning increases ecological patchiness and habitat heterogeneity, resource storage incentive, at a reduced cost of mobility. Image from Bird et al., 2016.
Possibly the main prey hunted by Martu people using patch-mosaic burning is the sand monitor lizard, Varanus gouldii. These lizards will shelter in old-growth spinifex grasslands during the colder months, living on their stored fat. The fire-stick burning cycles of spinifex are between 5 to 10 years. The Martu people tend to hunt the lizards in both winter (with fire) and summer. The caloric returns on this cyclic hunting are ~1,500-2,000 kcal/forager hr, reducing ~one year after fire events. In summer the lizards are tracked to new environments that, in the advent of rain, will regenerate vegetation for future lizard shelter episodes. The hunting, tracking cycle is then repeated. Bird et al., (2016) found that without the cyclic burning and hunting, caloric efficiency is severely diminished to 25-100 kcal/forager hour.
Conclusion
Although there is a possibility that fire domestication by hominins may have occurred as long ago as 2.58 mya or even earlier, at or before the time of the first stone tool fabrication by hominins; the most likely starting point according to the so-far best evidence is somewhere between 1.80 and 1.10 mya. The latter period being from Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa. Following this period and location, there is very valid evidence of hominin fire domestication with strong empirical supportive evidence of contextual stone-tool crafting at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel during 761 kya. With the progression of time the evidence becomes much more convincing and empirically valid. From around 400 kya we can be sure hominin fire domestication was a reality with examples in a large number of localities, e.g., the UK, France, Spain, and Germany to name a few.
None of the above supports the idea that Hominin agency is responsible for the fire production. In almost all of the domesticated fire events, there is a close correlation with world (contemporary) lightning strike statistics. If uniformitarianism can be assumed, fire domestication based on fire acquisition, transport and maintenance is the likely hypothesis.
Fire ignition technology could have been possible in many locations around the world at varying periods after 400 kya however the evidence is all but non-existent until reasonably recently.
It should not be taken for granted that H. sapiens cognition is wholly responsible for the benefits that fire domestication has given anatomically modern humans (AMHs). The most likely scenario is H. sapiens have benefitted from the hominins, now extinct, of our common ancestors, e.g., H. erectus and Neandertal; as it was during the existence of these hominins that most of the valid evidence exists.
The human agency fire use is evidenced in most areas of the world with the longest of these being Australia. In Australia, we can observe the successful adaptation of fire-stick burning over many thousands of years. This practice appears to offer insight into favorable anthropogenic ecologic management and a probable best practice farming model that may have been ignored substantially since colonial settlement to our disadvantage. Given the exponential advances in technologies for research, there is still a lot to learn and to learn from.
References cited, chapter 7
Alperson-Afil, N., 2008. Continual fire-making by hominins at Gesher Benot Ya ‘aqov, Israel. Quaternary Science Reviews, 27(17-18), pp.1733-1739.
Antón, S.C., 2003. Natural history of Homo erectus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 122(S37), pp.126-170.
Attwell, L., Kovarovic, K. and Kendal, J.R., 2015. Fire in the Plio-Pleistocene: the functions of hominin fire use, and the mechanistic, developmental and evolutionary consequences. Journal of anthropological sciences., 93, pp.1-20.
Beaumont, P.B., 2011. The edge: More on fire-making by about 1.7 million years ago at Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa. Current Anthropology, 52(4), pp.585-595.
Berna, F., Goldberg, P., Horwitz, L.K., Brink, J., Holt, S., Bamford, M. and Chazan, M., 2012. Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p.201117620.
Berna, F., Goldberg, P., Horwitz, L.K., Brink, J., Holt, S., Bamford, M. and Chazan, M., 2012. Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p.201117620.
Bettis III, E.A., Milius, A.K., Carpenter, S.J., Larick, R., Zaim, Y., Rizal, Y., Ciochon, R.L., Tassier-Surine, S.A., Murray, D. and Bronto, S., 2009. Way out of Africa: Early Pleistocene paleoenvironments inhabited by Homo erectus in Sangiran, Java. Journal of Human Evolution, 56(1), pp.11-24.
Bird, D.W., Bird, R.B., Codding, B.F. and Taylor, N., 2016. A landscape architecture of fire: Cultural emergence and ecological pyrodiversity in Australia’s Western Desert. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), pp.S65-S79.
Bird, D.W., Bliege Bird, R. and Codding, B.F., 2016. Pyrodiversity and the anthropocene: The role of fire in the broad spectrum revolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 25(3), pp.105-116.
Boaz, N.T., Ciochon, R.L., Xu, Q. and Liu, J., 2004. Mapping and taphonomic analysis of the Homo erectus loci at Locality 1 Zhoukoudian, China. Journal of Human Evolution, 46(5), pp.519-549.
Brain, C.K., 1993. The occurrence of burnt bones at Swartkrans and their implications for the control of fire by early hominids. Swartkrans: A cave’s chronicle of early man, pp.229-242.
Brain, C.K., 1994. The Swartkrans palaeontological research project in perspective: results and conclusions. South African Journal of Science, 90(4), pp.220-223.
Calvin, W.H., 2004. A brief history of the mind: From apes to intellect and beyond. Oxford University Press. William H. Calvin, A Brief History of the Mind (Oxford University Press 2004). See also http://WilliamCalvin.com/BHM/index.htm
Davidson, D.S., 1947. Fire‐making in Australia. American Anthropologist, 49(3), pp.426-437.
Gowlett, J.A. and Wrangham, R.W., 2013. Earliest fire in Africa: towards the convergence of archaeological evidence and the cooking hypothesis. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 48(1), pp.5-30.
Horwitz, L.K. and Chazan, M., 2015. Past and present at wonderwerk cave (Northern Cape Province, South Africa).
Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Gopher, A. and Stiner, M.C., 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of the Lower Paleolithic: Site-formation processes at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of human evolution, 53(2), pp.197-212.
MacDonald, K., 2017. The use of fire and human distribution. Temperature, 4(2), pp.153-165.
Mania, D. and Mania, U., 2005. The natural and socio-cultural environment of Homo erectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. The hominid individual in context: archaeological investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts, pp.98-114.
Mercier, N., Froget, L., Miallier, D., Pilleyre, T., Sanzelle, S. and Tribolo, C., 2004. Nouvelles données chronologiques pour le site de Menez-Dregan 1 (Bretagne): l'apport de la thermoluminescence [New chronological data of the site of Menez-Dregan 1 (Brittany): contribution from the thermoluminescence dating method.]. Quaternaire, 15(3), pp.253-261.
Moncel, M.H., Moigne, A.M. and Combier, J., 2005. Pre-Neandertal behaviour during isotopic stage 9 and the beginning of stage 8. New data concerning fauna and lithics in the different occupation levels of Orgnac 3 (Ardèche, South-East France): occupation types. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(9), pp.1283-1301.
Monnier, J.L., Hallégouët, B., Hinguant, S., Laurent, M., Auguste, P., Bahain, J.J., Falgueres, C., Gebhardt, A., Marguerie, D., Molines, N. and Morzadec, H., 1994. A new regional group of the Lower Palaeolithic in Brittany (France), recently dated by Electron Spin Resonance. Compte rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, 319(II), pp.155-160.
Peris, J.F., González, V.B., Blasco, R., Cuartero, F., Fluck, H., Sañudo, P. and Verdasco, C., 2012. The earliest evidence of hearths in Southern Europe: the case of Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Quaternary International, 247, pp.267-277.
Pickering, T.R., 2001. Taphonomy of the Swartkrans hominid postcrania and its bearing on issues of meat-eating and fire management. In Meat-eating and human evolution (pp. 33-51). Oxford University Press Oxford.
Preece, R.C., Gowlett, J.A., Parfitt, S.A., Bridgland, D.R. and Lewis, S.G., 2006. Humans in the Hoxnian: habitat, context and fire use at Beeches Pit, West Stow, Suffolk, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science: Published for the Quaternary Research Association, 21(5), pp.485-496.
Preece, R.C., Parfitt, S.A., Bridgland, D.R., Lewis, S.G., Rowe, P.J., Atkinson, T.C., Candy, I., Debenham, N.C., Penkman, K.E.H., Rhodes, E.J. and Schwenninger, J.L., 2007. Terrestrial environments during MIS 11: evidence from the Palaeolithic site at West Stow, Suffolk, UK. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26(9-10), pp.1236-1300.
Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J.W., Feibel, C.S., Bernor, R.L., Fesseha, N. and Mowbray, K., 1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature, 385(6614), p.333.
Shen, G., Gao, X., Gao, B. and Granger, D.E., 2009. Age of Zhoukoudian Homo erectus determined with 26 Al/10 Be burial dating. Nature, 458(7235), p.198.
