What Is Archaeology? & Lower Paleolithic
Archaeology = the study of human behaviour through material remains
Archaeological record = the material remains of the world’s past human behaviour
Culture = “the system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning” (Bates and Plog)
Culture = “learned behaviour” (Colin D. Wren)
Archaeological culture = a set of material remains consistently found together in many sites (not necessarily a group of people)
Course concept map:
Archaeological record (survey excavation to get it) à interpretation (lab work, quantitative, qualitative analyses to get it) à cultural processes (comparison theory to get it) à hypothesis (synthesis, predictions, testable to get it )à archaeological record
And the cycle continues
Why study the past?
(Pre)history repeats itself
Appreciation for cultural diversity
New perspective on the present
Alternative trajectories of civilization
How we have shaped our environment (for the past 2.6M years)
Understand cultural origins
What’s involved in doing archaeology?
The fieldwork:
Survey (walking through the sand, looking for any trace of a bowl, or the remains of a fireplace, etc)
Excavation
Interpretation (the lab work – the majority of time is spent at this stage)
Archaeology is multi-disciplinary:
Natural science
Social science
Humanities
Exercise: what does your garbage say about you? Consider your collection of garbage leaving your apartment for one month?
What are the three most abundant artefact types?
Food
Kleenex
Paper
What can you interpret about:
Diet
Prepackaged foods
Role in society
We are consumers not producers
There are roles; we do not dispose of garbage ourselves, other people do it
Values and beliefs
We are not environmentally friendly
We throw things out, we do not conserve
Diet, role in society, values and beliefs – this is the hierarchy, it becomes harder to make judgements as we move up the hierarchy
Biological vs. morphological species (archaeology uses morphological):
Biological species = a group of physically similar organisms that can produce fertile offspring
Morphological species = a group of physically similar fossils
Says nothing about reproduction – this is a potential problems
Morphology is shape
We categorize male/female based on shape/dimensions (since we can’t do it based on reproduction) à we end up using ratios, since we measure every dimension imaginable)
Potential problems:
There are individual size differences (that’s why we use ratios)
Age and specimen (especially with things like teeth and bones built together)
But we can account for that
Huge problem = if damage (if you have a tiny fraction of a femur, it’s hard to measure that) – this approach relies on whole specimens
Methods are not standardized – different researchers have their own ideas about which measure is most important
Researchers disagree on how to categorize specimens
This makes for different estimates of a species’ prevalence in a certain area
4M years ago, in Aramis, Ethiopia, you find “Ardi” (ardipithecus ramidus)
The oldest known hominin (hominid includes the various other primates)
Our ancestor
The skeleton is almost complete!
Quadrepedal in trees & bipedal on the ground (he can do both)
He has the ankle shape that allows him to walk upright on the ground
Divergent big toes (big toe is separate from the other toes, like our hands, not our feet)
He’s a hominin bc he’s bipedal – or we wouldn’t have the confidence that he’s hominin
Go forward a million years – 3.2mya, in Hadar, Ethiopia, you find “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis – so a new species and family from Ardi)
Bipedal but still some arboreal features (features that allow her to be in trees still)
2mya (or 3.3mya) in Dikka, Ethiopia, you find “Selam” aka Lucy’s baby
A 3 year old female
Afarensis
She had a still-growing brain when she died at 3 years old – this is very human, and requires extra parental care
Childhood, which required a complex social organization, therefore emerged over 3.3 mya!
Brain growth after birth – this is a derived characteristic (something that emerged after we split from the apes)
8mya in Laetoli, Ethiopia
Footprints in ash
Likely A. Afarensis
Bipedal, soft tissue impression
Directly dated ash (bc it’s volcanic ash)
Therefore: bipedal existed, before Lucy and Selam
6mya in Gona, Ethiopia:
Oldest known stone tools (archaeology begins)
Archaeology begins here – first tools, and archaeology deals with tools, not people!
Core and flake tools
Garhi vs. homo habilus – there’s a debate here
Core tool: chunk of rock with a couple flakes taken off of it – it has a particular shape, you have to hold it at a particular angle
You bang a rock against another rock so a couple flakes come off
This process = “percussion”
Purpose: so you have a sharp edge
Also called a “chopper”
Flake tools: the flakes are taken off of the core
We don’t know which one was the end purpose (core or flake) – probably both were used. Choppers for working wood or breaking bones to get marrow; flakes for butchery
The characteristic tool of the Oldowan is the chopper
Likely efficient scavenging tools – marrow extraction
This is the Oldowan industry
Purpose is probably not hunting elements
They are probably highly efficient scavenging tools
If a gazelle has died by a lion
A small chimp cannot take away the meat from the pack of lions
They had to wait until the lions were finished
Then they waited until the hyenas were finished
Then they ate – so they probably did marrow extraction
Marrow: not eaten by the lions, bc they couldn’t break the bones
These tools were to bash open the long bones
9mya in Olduvai, Tanzania:
Habilus
Significantly larger brain that A. afarensis (Lucy)
That’s why we give him the family name “homo” – first homo
Oldowan industry type site
It’s industry, not culture – one small tool is not enough for the big word “culture”
But forehead still not a modern forehead – not as big as ours
This is bc our PFC has grown
5mya in Nariokotome, Kenya
Erectus
Fully bipedal
Not a successful species
Stenson: he had a bad back, probably from a childhood injury, he had scoliosis
So to have survived til when he did, he must have had females and younger family members look after him
He died at age 12 when he was trapped in a swamp
Body was very similar to our own
Was on the threshold to becoming human
modern physiology – bipedal, same running gait as our own, etc
One adolescent boy skeleton (1.5mya in Nariokotome):
He was tall and thin, typical of tropical populations among modern humans
He lived on the rich grasslands by the Omo River
Perhaps died of infection
8 mya in Dmanisi, Georgia (another recently discovered skeleton)
Another H. Erectus
First hominin out-of-Africa
He had lost all but one of his teeth – how did he survive? Did he rely on charity?
He died at age 40
Much older than any previously-found fossil out-of-Africa
Same old oldowan stone tools – they were obviously used for a very long time
New ecological niche – had to adapt to a new environmental condition
He did so with not much new (since still using the same tools)
Also made it to Java (1.6mya), and China
First hominin dispersal:
Erectus covered most of old world quickly
They spread out of Africa and went everywhere
Lots of new ecological niches
No fire, simple tools
How did they make it out?
Theory: bigger brain size
Behavioural flexibility
Ability to adapt to a lot of new environments, using the same tools in innovative new ways
Extended social networks à reduced risk (this is the second theory)
The right turn out of Africa
The left turn out of Africa (i.e. in Europe; Georgia is Eastern Europe, near Asia):
800kya, Atapuerca, Spain
Took longer to get to Europe
Antecessor? New species name? Looked a little different
Earliest site in Europe
Oldowan tools
27 hominins tossed into a natural crevice
Special treatment of the dead?
Implies that they placed some value on that individual
They were all at the same time roughly
Theory: if some infection killed many, they were all buried together
500 kya, Boxgrove, England
Heidelbergensis
Some still call it erectus, very similar
No boats
Acheulean industry
Finally they started making something new, in addition to Oldowan tools
Huge “handaxes”
Spread everywhere except China
Larger, more deliberately shaped into this tear-drop shape (and symmetrical)
More flakes taken off – bc it took more effort, used for longer (there’s a lot of curation at the ends of the tool – this means they used it for a while and then re-sharpened it)
They made them this specific way (learned from their parents) for a non-functional purpose – it was just a style
Woodworking? Butchering?
Big animals (lions, bears, rhinos) present near this site of Boxgrove, England
Unsure what was hunted – although probably horse, given the next finding:
400kya; Schoningen, Germany
8 wooden spears
Fire hardened tips
20 butchered wild horses
Heidelbergensis not a scavenger – he was out there purposefully hunting
Handaxes used to sharpen wooden spears here – so this was probably a use for the handaxes before as well
What do the fossil and material remains tell us?
Bipedal (a derived characteristic)
Spatial/social organization (how artefacts are arranged in a site and across landscapes)
To take down 20 wild horses, you need an established group + coordination (this suggests language)
Tool function
Hunting vs. scavenging
Why tools at that time?
Maybe because now we have free hands
An old hypothesis: we learned to walk on two feet to be able to have free hands à this has been shown to be false
Brain size/learning
A larger brain doesn’t necessarily mean learning, but it does seem correlated with increasing complexity of tool manufacturing and the purposes we use the tools for
Maybe environmental stress
The environment was all great, lots of resources
Then the climate shifted, and the ecological niche that we were inhabiting shrunk
Scarcity, bc the forest started disappearing, and we ate a lot of fruit à so natural selection selected for something like a brain, which allowed us to make tools
Climate niches
Most of old world
No other species are like this – inhabit lots of niches
Our ancestors adapted and diversified – this is rare
Why is this relevant today?
Understand: why we look, think, and act the way we do
Humility: in the interpretation of our ancestors scavenging meat for a few million years
Impact: of the environment on shaping our physiology
Appreciation: for the time depth of technology (2.6my) and its role in our lives
Textbook, Chapter 3
The early hominin record includes species belonging to 4 distinct genera:
Australopithecus (4mya – 2.5mya)
Homo habilis (2.5mya – 1.6mya)
Paranthropus (2.5mya – 1.4mya)
Homo erectus (1.9mya – 45,000 years ago)
3 major themes in the archaeology of early hominins:
Tool use
A distinctive marker of the human lineage
Adaptation
Social organization
Sahelanthropus tchadensis:
The oldest fossils thought to belong to the hominin lineage
Fossils were discovered in Chad, that were 7 mya
Ardipithecus ramidus:
Another early hominin
Lived 4.5mya
Known from fossils discovered in 1992 at the site of Aramis in Ethiopia
More is known from the discovery of a complete skeleton – a female named Ardi
She had an opposable large toe – so can climb in trees
Unlike apes in that she: lacks the features necessary for knuckle walking + lacks the pronounced canines they also have
The early hominin radiation: 4mya – 2mya
= an explosion in the diversity of hominin species
Included 3 distinct genera (all in Africa still):
Kenyanthropus
5mya
Similar to the australopithecines
Australopithecus (“australopithecines”)
Mostly East and South Africa
A new one (Australopithecus bahrelghazali) lived 3.5mya in Chad
Lucy provided the evidence that they walked on two legs
The ash footprints provided graphic evidence of this
The footprints were dated 3.8mya, so they were likely a. afarensis (like Lucy)
Can also climb trees
Paranthropus
Also called “robust Australopithecus”
Massive molars and muscles for chewing (nickname = Nutcracker man)
A diet that includes seeds or fruits with a hard outer coating
These three were distinct but similar in that they all:
Bipedal (though some could climb trees still)
Lacked the pronounced canines
Mean brain size at 450-475 cubic centimeters (this is at the high end of brain size for living apes)
So: within the hominin lineage, bipedalism and loss of large canines preceded a significant increase in brain size
Homo habilis:
Same time as Paranthropus
East Africa
Lacked the heavy chewing muscles and large teeth characteristic of Paranthropus; had a larger brain (500-800cc)
The first “homo”
Homo erectus: brain size 750-1250cc (further increase); Africa, Asia, Europe
Some researchers separate the earliest Homo Erectus fossils from sites in Africa into a distinct species called Homo Ergaster
The richest context for the recovery of early hominin archaeological sites = East African Rift Valley
It is a trough (so it’s filling up with sediments so it preserves the sites)
It is tectonically active (so there’s lots of erosion)
This à formation of badlands (gullies and ravines)
It is volcanically active (so levels of volcanic ash, “tuffs”, can be dated using the argon method)
Of all the gullies and ravines, the most important location for the study of human evolution is: the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania
Bed I is the earliest unit, Bed IV the latest, and the Masek Beds overlying Bed IV
Lower Paleolithic, in Africa, is called the Early Stone Age
Lower Paleolithic is the period during which early hominins began making stone tools
Two main industries associated with the Lower Paleolithic: Oldowan + Acheulian
Oldowan: 1.9mya – 1.15mya
The least-effort solution
Acheulian: 1.7mya – 200,000 years ago
Sites found in Africa, Europe, Middle East, and India
Began at the same time as the first appearance of Homo Erectus and the extinction of Homo Habilis
The characteristic tool of the Acheulian is the biface
Earliest evidence of design
Can be handaxes (pointed end) or cleavers (wide working end)
The archaeological study of stone tools = lithic analysis
The manufacture of stone tools = knapping
Percussion (banging) techniques:
Direct: it is delivered directly to the core
Hard-hammer direct: a rock is used as a hammer
Soft-hammer direct: an antler or piece of hardwood is used
Using this allows the knapper to produce thin flakes with a less pronounced bulb of percussion
Indirect: intermediary device (“punch”) is used btwn the hammer and the core
For precise placement of the blow – controlled
Pressure techniques:
The force is applied by pressure vs. a blow (the knapper pushes off a flake using an antler)
Involves a great deal of force
Used in the very fine shaping of tools
No blow is involved, so the bulb of percussion is very diffuse, and very thin flakes can be removed
The careful secondary shaping of a core or flake = retouch
Tool use is not uniquely human (even birds use tools)
Chimpanzees in the Tai Forest use tools to break nuts, after observing parents doing it
This tool use is not uniform across Africa; even when two populations in different African regions have the same nuts, only one uses tools
This may mean that chimps have culture
Only humans manufacture tools (chimps can be taught, but limitedly)
3mya from Lokalalei, Kenya – the tools found there showed:
Tool manufacturing was extremely complex, unlike any process known from studies of animal behaviour
The main methods used to date early hominin sites:
Paleomagnetic dating
Determines when sediments were deposited
Dates the soils in which artifacts are found, vs. the artifacts themselves
So won’t be applicable if the artifact has been carried around by water and isn’t in its original location
Based on switches of polarity (normal and reversed)
So you can tell whether the artifact was from a period of normal or reversed polarity
Argon dating
Gives you a numerical age vs. assigning a deposit to an epoch or event
Works by means of an accumulation clock, measures the ratio of K:Ar
Needs volcanic activity
Cosmogenic Burial Age dating
A new method
Beginning to have an impact, particularly on cave sites
Chimpanzee sharing is at the spot of the kill; hunter-gatherer sharing is back at home base
Home-base/food-sharing model (Isaac): the sharing of meat at base camps is fundamental to the lives of early hominins
The ability to share and cooperate, vs. the ability to kill, is the driving force behind human evolution
Palimpsest: an archaeological site produced by a series of distinct brief occupations
Isaac’s theory is based off of a site filled with bones and tools – he thought it was a base camp, where they shared meat
The site may actually be a palimpsest, and not a base camp where meat was shared
So his theory may be wrong
In the lower Paleolithic period: there is very little evidence for the controlled use of fire
By 1.4mya, the radiation was over – only Homo erectus survived
Then (1.8mya): dispersal: a single species disperses
Archaeological evidence for the timing of the dispersal:
Ubeidiya (in Israel)
4mya, Homo Erectus
Oldowan
Dmanisi (in Georgia)
8mya, Homo Erectus
Earliest evidence of human occupation outside of Africa
Oldowan
Java (Indonesia, East Asia)
Sites of Sangiran and Perning – 1.8mya
Stone tools not found
Homo Erectus
Nihewan Basin (China, East Asia)
6mya, Oldowan tools found
The earliest evidence for walking upright was found in Australopithecus afarensis
The earliest evidence for tool manufacture is found at the Gona site in Hadar, Ethiopia, 2.5mya
Why Is Dating Important? & Middle Paleolithic
Dating is important because:
Links time over space
Link different types of data (e.g. paleoclimate with artefacts)
Context to interpretation
Allows us to study change
Ways to categorize dating methods:
Relative vs. absolute dating:
Relative = X is older than Y
Law of superposition = things that are lower down in strategraphy are older
But how much older? All we could do was know the order of things
Absolute dating allows us to say how much older
A newer development
X is 4500 +/- 50 cal yr BP
Cal = calibrated
BP = before present (the standard present is 1950)
Direct vs. indirect dating:
Direct = method dates the target itself (e.g. radiocarbon dating)
Indirect = date something associated with your target (less precise)
Dating methods:
Radiocarbon dating:
Effective range = 400-40,000 years ago
Target: anything organic
Absolute & direct
Also known as C14 dating
Clock starts when target dies
C14 decays, but regular C12 doesn’t; so the ratio of C14 to C12 changes, and it changes in a predictable way
Dendrochronology:
Effective range = present-10,000 years ago
Target: wood
Absolute & direct
Needs to be anchored to another tree
Counting the rings on a tree trunk – but then when you cannot count anymore, you need to anchor to another tree
Used to be used to calibrate radioactive carbon
U-series:
Effective range = ~2-500 thousand years ago
Target: bones and teeth
Absolute & direct
Best combined with other methods (ESR) bc it’s wobbly
K-Ar & Ar-Ar:
Effective range = 1000-5mya
Target: volcanic rock, ash
Absolute & indirect
Only in volcanic areas (e.g. volcanic)
Thermoluminecense:
Effective range = present – 200 thousand years ago
Target: burnt lithics (TL), buried sediment (OSL), teeth (ESR)
Absolute & direct
Recent techniques, highly specialized
Rodent teeth:
Effective range = present – 500kya
Target: rodent teeth
Relative & indirect
Gives wide age ranges (+/- 10,000 or 20,000 years), commonly used for MiddlePaleo European sites
How are dates represented in the published literature?
If we don’t say “plus or minus however many years”, it can be very misrepresented
If we don’t say that, it looks like we’re dealing with multiple strata / time periods – really when we are dealing with one strata
So you need to give midpoints AND ranges
We can represent dating as:
Continuous vs. phased time
Different types emphasize different things
Continuous seems like change is continuous
Phased time makes it seem like change goes in jumps
Olduvai Gorge is a type site for Oldowan
It was found first
So if a new site is found, it’s compared to Olduvai Gorge, and if it’s similar, it’s lumped in with Oldowan
Middle Paleolithic
Also called Middle Stone Age, in Africa
Middle Paleolithic creatures:
Neanderthals (Nean): appears in Europe and the Middle East
Erectus: covers Eurasia and Africa (the whole old world)
Theories:
Allopatric speciation; the boundary is just different continents, creates separation = out-of-Africa model
H. Antecessor is found only in spain; this theory is not given much credit
Gene flow maintained Nean and AMH (anatomically modern humans) as one species, with enough separation to form “ethnic groups” = multi-regional model
We evolved in multiple regions, with enough gene flow to keep us together
To determine which ones are falsified, need to look for hybrids! Haven’t found yet
Neanderthals have the biggest brain EVER; their range of brain size is smaller than AMH, but their average brain size is much bigger
But their skull is different, and it shows that they have less frontal lobe
Also thicker brow ridge
Bigger occipital bun
Their brains are bigger than ours, and they are organized differently
Neanderthals also have a hyoid bone in the throat – it’s in the voicebox
Other than Selam, neanderthals’ hyoid bone looks identical to ours
So that suggests that they could talk just like us; they could make the same sounds as us (whether or not they had language is unknown, bc that’s a learned thing)
Different brains maybe means that they think differently than us
If they think differently they may behave differently
What was the interaction with modern humans? Did they interbreed? What was the nature of their relationship?
Neanderthals’ post-cranial (body) morphology:
Stocky and robust body
Shorter + huger muscles
They were stocky and robust because they are “cold adapted” (debated)
Lived through two complete glacial cycles
They were in Europe, not Africa in the sun
They are more similar to people who live in cold environments today
Bow-legged: hips and legs
Not as much as Lower Paleo creatures, but more than AMH
Lots of trauma to their bones, just through their life
This is almost ubiquitous, in almost every skeleton discovered
They have also been healed
Nean diet:
Take the stable-isotope analysis (N15) of Neanderthal bone, and compare to other animals, lions, etc – from that we can determine their diet
They ate meat, just meat (97%)
This means they are skilled hunters using a variety of techniques
They ran 20+ mammoths off a cliff
Seasonal bison hunt à shows an understanding of how the world/environment works, they could clearly keep time
Thrown spears, javelin-style
The Neanderthal genome has been sequenced!
This can be used to determine the relationship between the Neans and the AMHs
Neans are more similar to European and Chinese modern humans, than they are to African modern humans
So they mixed in Europe, and Europeans brought that when they moved to China
So now, non-African humans have that Nean component
Nean geneticsà
Divergence (the divergence between Neans and AMH)= 800kya
But there has been significant interbreeding
5-9% Nean DNA in today’s people
Characteristics: not a lot of genetic variation – this means that they had a small population size
They have some genetic traits that are the same as ours
The only one we’ve figured out that we have the same = red hair
Tools: Mousterian industry (300-30kya)
Levallois method: they take a nodule of rock and they spend a lot of time precisely shaping a core
Not to use the core, but bc the last thing they do = to pop off one flake that is exactly the shape they want
The end purpose was the flake, not the core – the core becomes garbage
“Levallois flakes”, “prepared core techniques” à points, scrapers
Spatial variability in look and in technique (the sequence of how they shape that original core)
What do regional differences represent? Regional variations in style like we have today à means they had culture
Dating is important here; without dates, we couldn’t tell if it were spatial variation in design, or simply change through time
Neanderthal sites:
Umm el Tlel, Syria (5o+kya):
Wild ass with embedded levallois pointà means thrown spear
If it were jabbed in, the point wouldn’t have broken off
Shanidar Cave, Israel (70kya):
One individual: Shanidar 1:
40-50 years old
Broken cheekbone, blind in one eye
Broken arm resulted in unusable hand
Joint disease on right leg
Yet he was 40-50 years old! Somebody had to be taking care h
Shanidar 3: sustained penetrating wound to a rib
These cases show that these guys cared for each other
Their social group was tight enough that they cared for each other for a prolonged period of time
Flower pollen on buried adult male – this had been a symbolic burial
This has been questioned: ritual or rodents (carried the pollen)?
Amud cave, Isreal (60kya):
Child burial; upper jaw of a red deer on pelvis
The deer seems to have been buried with him, but only the jaw was found
This has been interpreted also as a ritual
With Shanidar 1, maybe he was older so he’d built up status, and that’s why he was cared for
With this child, no time to build up status; so maybe he inherited status
Moula-Guercy, France (100kya):
Totally average butchery – of a Neanderthal
This is cannibalism!
Cannibalism also at Krapina, Croatia
Is this ritual consumption of ancestors or enemies? Or simply a “this guy died, he has meat, let’s eat it”
Vanguard and Gorham’s Caves, Spain (42kya):
Dolphins and seals with cut marks
Also mollusks, fish
Water’s edge hunting inferred (rather than boats)
But catching a dolphin is not as easy as catching a grazing wild ass
Shows what they are capable of
Preveli, Crete (190-130kya):
Chunky quartz handaxes
Dated indirectly using known geological strata and sea rise models
Why is this significant?
This location is far off the coast; you would have had to sail and paddle there
So Neanderthals built boats once in a while; they were capable of it
Kebara Cave, Israel (50kya):
Tools:
60-70% regular flakes, various shapes
Half of the triangular ones show use-wear
20% Levallois
lots of points and scrapers
Not much retouch (resharpening)
Spatial organization:
3-15cm thick, 20-80 cm diameter ash & charcoal deposits, no rocks
These are fire pits!! “Hearths”
And there were a lot of them, pretty close together
We don’t actually know if these were burning at the same time
That would suggest that a) they came back, and b) they didn’t care where they burned it – no fireplace
Ash was spread out, purposefully – maybe sleeping area??
That was the excavator’s explanation, but why would you want to sleep in ash???
Bones and garbage around sides of cave, especially the north wall, middle clear à they clean the place out!
Flora and Fauna:
Gazelle and deer bones
Cut marks on 10%
Burning on 4% – which is weird, given that they cooked most of their meat (bc we saw fireplaces)
Plant materials around ash deposits
Oak charcoal and charred wild peas
Oak charcoal à they are therefore burning wood!
Charred peas à dried out peas last longer, so that’s why they were charred, it was purposeful
Nean skeletons:
Mostly teeth, many of children (kids lose teeth!)
This means they were spending lots of time in this cave, families were here as well, wasn’t just hunter men
KMH 1: infant 7-9 months
KMH 2: mostly complete adult male, missing skull, most of legs
Dug out pit, in the north wall garbage pile
KMH 9 & 10: foot bones
KMH 17: clavicle
KMH 20: Parietal bone
Summary:
Family living space above a hunting grounds
That they visited frequently, maybe seasonally, or maybe different groups used it
Control of fire
Purposeful burials (but why?)
Hunting tools and prey animals
Plant processing
Very little difference from the contemporary AMH
“In sum, the commonly Eurocentric summaries which attempt to show major archaeological differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons [AMH] are not supported by the evidence exposed in Kebara Cave” (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992)
Neanderthals were not stupid, grunting knuckle-draggers
Neanderthal summary:
Seriously rough lives
Highly successful, intelllifent species (sub-species? Maybe they are homo sapiens neanderthalis; we are homo sapiens sapiens)
If they were interbreeding, they were not a separate biological species
Morphological species? Not sure
Cared for the sick, wounded and dead
Conservative in Mousterian stone tool technology
Top of food chain, specialists in grazing animals
Fairly similar in behaviour to contemporary AMH
Even though their brains lad a different morphology
Textbook, Chapter 4
The evolution of Neanderthals took place within the context of the geological period known as the Pleistocene, or the Ice Age
The Pleistocene is characterised by glacial eras (significant buildup of ice sheets) and interglacial eras (periods during which the ice sheet subsequently retreated)
A record of Pleistocene climate change can be measured by looking at shifts in this ratio:
Colder climate à more ice on land à less water in ocean à high ratio 18O : 16O
Warmer climate à less ice on land à more water in ocean à low ratio 18O : 16O
This is the oxygen isotope curve
Glacial and interglacial events are given numbers, from the most recent to the oldest
We now live in Oxygen Isotope Stage 1
In the last chapter we examined evidence for the initial dispersal of H. Erectus. To understand the evolution of Neanderthals, we need to know more about what happened after this initial dispersal, when hominins first spread into Western Europe. We also need to know about the Lower Paleo cultures of Europe and Asia.
Gran Dolina, Atapuerca, Spain:
Stone tools (flakes and cores) and hominin remains dated to 800,000 years ago
The oldest reliable evidence of human occupation of Western Europe
Homo antecessor
Bose, China:
The earliest date for an Acheulian industry anywhere outside of Africa
Gesher Benot Ya’akov, Israel:
Other than Bose, the earliest well-dated Acheulian site outside of Africa
In the northern extension of the East African Rift Valley
Dated to 780,000 years ago
Only beginning 500,000 years ago, Acheulian sites became common in Eurasia
There is regional variation in the Eurasian Acheulian, but as a whole, these industries show significant contrast with the African Acheulian
Cleavers are almost completely absent from the Eurasian Acheulian, and handaxes are the major type of biface
Eurasian Acheulian also included retouched flakes, e.g. sidescrapers
Boxgrove, England:
Among the earliest known Acheulian sites in Europe, dated to 500,000 years ago
Not all sites in Europe after 500,000 years ago have produced handaxes
The Clactonian is an industry in England of simple flake tools contemporary with the Acheulian
One would expect that all groups would rapidly adopt the Acheulian technology, but this is not the case – handaxe manufacture never became widespread in East Asia, and it only became widespread in Europe (and Western Asia) 500,000 years ago, hundreds of thousands of years after the first arrival of hominins
Then, even after the widespread appearance of handaxes in Europe and Western Asia, there were industries such as the Clactonian that did not involve handaxe manufacture
Ecological factors might account for this as well as for the differences between the African and Eurasian Acheulian
Another possibility is that different industries are evidence of distinct groups / waves of migration
The initial dispersal might have been of the Oldowan people pushed out of Africa by more successful Acheulian groups
Another possibility is that it reflects social factors such as group size, since elaborate stone tool manufacture involves learning
Maybe the far less elaborate Clactonian industries were produced by small groups living in an interglacial wooded environment with a low risk from predators and an evenly distributed availability of food resources
Zhoukoudian: a massive series of caves in China, where the remains of more than 40 H. erectus individuals and 100,000 stone choppers and flakes were recovered
Might be as old as 750,000 years old
Provides the earliest evidence for the use of fire
The use of fire during Lower Paleo was rare – the most compelling evidence for the use of fire in the Lower Paleo comes from the Beeches Pit in England, dated 400,000 years ago
There is very little evidence of either artwork or ritual behaviour in Lower Paleo; exceptions:
Signs of artwork in Berekhat Ram, Golan Heights
Special treatment of the dead in Sima de los Huesos (a cave in Atapuerca, Spain), 300,000 years ago
The earliest evidence of human occupation of Western Europe was at TD-6 level of the Gran Dolina site at Atapuerca – dated 800,000 years ago
With the exception of Bose, there is little evidence of Acheulian sites east of India
Neanderthals:
175,000 – 30,000 years ago
Oldest fossil found in Biache-Saint-Vaast (France), dated to 175,000 years ago
Most recent fossil found in Mezmaiskaya Cave, dated to 30,000 years ago
Neanderthals lived through two complete glacial cycles
Brain size: 1200 – 1700cc
Europe and the Middle East
No Neanderthal fossils have been found in Africa or East Asia
Neanderthals only rarely made handaxes; after having been central, they disappeared 200,000 years ago
Unlike Lower Paleo (where tools were uniform across time and space), there is variation
The Binford-Bordes debate on tool variation:
Bordes à it means different ethnic groups existed
Binford à they didn’t have ethnicity, rather different tools were for different purposes, and variation reflected the activities that took place in one area vs. another
Mellars said neither were correct: the different tools were across time, which also makes Binford wrong, since a “hide working period” wouldn’t be followed by a “butchery period”, etc
Dibble also critiqued Bordes’ typology by pointing out: Frison effect:
Due to re-sharpening, the process through which the shape of stone tools changes during their use-life
g. a simple sidescraper (one edge of the flake retouched) could become a double sidescraper (two edges retouched), and it could then become a convergent sidescraper (two edges that meet are retouched)
Variation due to different accesses to raw materials – if less, more retouching
Boeda à now we know that there is ethnicity, but not in the way Bordes thought; different groups had different ways of getting to the flake
La Cotte de St. Brelade: the location on the Jersey islands where evidence of Neanderthals hunting mammoths by stampeding them off a cliff was found
Neanderthal base camps: central living areas with hearths and peripheral areas used as dumps
complications bc caves were shared (though not at the same time) by Neanderthals, hyenas, cave bears
There is no evidence of Neanderthal artwork
Though many Nean sites are very small, they show intensive activity
Possible that this is because they were inhabited continuously; i.e. Neans were much more sedentary than the more recent human hunter-gatherers
Other researchers say that they are highly mobile hunter-gatherers – there is evidence to support this position as well
How Do We Recognize Modern Thought? & Modern Humans in Africa
What categories of thinking define us as modern? How do we define modern thought?
Which hominins were capable of having modern thought?
AMH (logic is circular, but we’re going to go with it)
AMH:
Morphologically within modern human’s range
Dimensions of skeletal features same as ours
Characteristics of the skull:
Globular skull
Big brain (average smaller than Nean)
Vertical forehead – larger PFC
Smaller brow ridges
They have a chin – chins only exist in modern humans
Characteristics of post-cranial body:
Gracile body (less robust, more delicate a frame)
Narrower rib cage
New pelvis shapeà no longer bow-legged (knees are straight)
A new pelvis is related to different skull – a baby’s skull has to fit through the pelvis of the mom
DNA:
Little genetic diversity (and all the diversity is found in Africa)
So little, that we’re comparable to a sub-species (homo sapiens sapiens)
This is bc recent common origin (200kya) of a small-ish population
One of the earliest AMH (or almost):
Herto, Ethipia, 160kya
Three partial skulls
sapiens idaltu
Retains some H. Erectus features
Klasies River and Border Cave, South Africa (120-70kya) – the first homo sapiens sapiens
Cranial and post-cranial remains found
Within modern human size range
Neans were definitely still around
How do we recognize thought at all, in archaeology?
Need to make assumptions about behaviour
If they act modern, they must think modern
But what exactly is modern behaviour
It’s the behaviour of only AMH
Behaviours in which we only see in AMH
This logic is circular – bc we’re looking for what distinguishes AMH from Nean, so what happens if we see symbolism as modern, but then find it in Neans? Do we say Neans are capable of modern thought, or do we say symbolism is no longer characterised as modern thought?
What is AMH behaviour?
Middle stone age: the tool industry of AMH
Very similar to Nean’s MP (middle Paleo)
Lots of Levallois prepared cores
But more variations in end product shape
250kya – 50kya
The homo sapiens sapiens start well within the middle stone age
Mugurk, Kenya – Sangoan/Lupemban industry:
A variant of middle stone age industry
East and central African regional industry
Unreliable dates, could be as old as 200kya
Heavy tools and light lead shaped points
Lots of crappy flake tools
Specialized functions
Mugharet el Aliya, Morocco (60-35 kya):
Aterian industry (40-20kya)
Another regional industry, northern African
Points with a tang (probably for an atlatl dart)
Small figurines
Katanda, Congo (75+ kya):
Barbed bone spear points
Klasies River, South Africa (110-70kya):
Howiesons Poort industry
Microliths or exotic material
Part of compound tools
Ochre “pencils” (like red paint) (Neans had black)
Significant spatial organization
Hearths, organized middens (not in the sides, like Kebara; outside, organized garbage areas)
Pinnacle Point, South Africa (160kya):
Marine adaptation (shellfish)
Not like Neans, where we found in once; sea creatures were their dominant food source
This was possibly a response to a harsh climatic period (OIS 6) – land animals started to disappear
Glacial cycles:
Core of ocean floor
Glacial: cold, even numbers
So OIS 6 is a cold period
Interglacials: warm, odd numbers
We count back from the present, so 1 (an odd number) is warm
Blombos Cave, South Africa (77kya)
8000 pieces of red ochre
Carved ochre pencil; not just a pencil, but carved design into it
This is one of the first evidences of artwork
So red point is now a very important part of their daily life
Ostrich egg and shell beads – jewellery or maybe these beads were tied into clothes
No beadwork like this in Nean sites
MSA (the middle stone age) – has greater regional diversity (of styles, even materials used for the tools)
Neans had diversity in method, but not like this; the end products were the same
What is modern about the MSA? What does the MSA say about AMH cognition?
In what new ways were they able to think?
Artwork – shows symbolism, they are representing an idea or a concept onto a canvas or stone
Exotic materials – needs they had to trade
Modern thought (McBrearty and Brooks 2000):
Abstract thinking: abstract concepts not limited in time or space
Planning depth: strategies based on past experience in a group context
Behaviour, economic and technological innovativeness
Economy = the sharing and distributing of products
Here, it’s about food – so it’s about hunting styles, etc – that’s what they are talking about
Symbolic behaviour: represent objects, people, and abstract concepts with reified symbols
Material evidence of modern thought:
Ecological: colonizing new environments (innovation and planning depth)
Technological features (inventiveness and capacity for logical thinking)
Economic & Social: develop systematic plans, formalized relationships among individuals and groups
Symbolic: communicate abstract concepts, manipulate symbols as a part of everyday life (an example of this would be regionally specific tool shapes, to show that you are part of a certain group – represents this abstract idea of belongingness)
Neans show some colonizing new environments – Crete, they had to built boats for that
They seem halfway there
Neans existed in Europe when AMHs were in Africa – contemporary
Upper Paleo revolution (Europe) – these innovations (blades, beads, etc) all happened at the same time
In Africa, they happened gradually
The Middle à Late Stone Age Transition
Europe:
Distinct transition from Middle to Upper Paleo; called a revolution
Africa:
MSA-LSA transition
Most research in Africa was re early hominins; Europe was thought to be the exciting place to study middle-upper Paleo
It used to be thought of as a revolution as well – it was just assumed, since Europe was
What used to be thought:
MSA = MP
Made by pre-modern homo (archaic homo sapiens)
Cognitive equal to Neanderthals
LSA = UP
Symbolism, microliths, broad spectrum foraging
Both made by modern humans
Both start roughly 40kya
But then – they found the earliest AMH, dated to almost 200kya
When the MSA was happening – challenged the above view
So you have AMHs who aren’t behaving modernly – so was there a lag btwn the development of modern anatomy and modern cognition?
Theory: there was a rewiring of the brain that didn’t leave any anatomical trace
Then they found these weird things: a shell used as a palette, an engraved ochre fragment….. again challenged the assumption that Africa had a revolution
Early symbolism
Also they had broad spectrum foraging in the MSA
LSA periods:
Early LSA:
18-40kya
More microliths, and you see ostrich eggshell beads
Poorly understood
Robberg (12-18kya, microlithic)
Oakhurst (non-microlithic)
Wilton
Ceramics
The MSA-LSA transition: what’s going on:
Changes in demographic pressure
And the more people you have in one area, the more rules you need to have, in order for people to get along
In the MSA, you have periods of intense demographic pressure, and then periods of less – ebb and flow
This is related to cultural change
Changes in social structures and networks
Cultural change
This transition is different from the early-middle stone age transition – bc you have only one species (vs. also having Neanderthals, etc)
If people in the MSA were behaviourally and cognitively modern, then when did modern complex cognition originate?
Is complex cognition limited to modern humans only?
What constitutes complex cognition?
How can this be identified from the archaeological record?
g. compound tools (multi-component tools)
Also traps and snares are a good indicator of complex cognition
Compound tools have also been found at Nean sites
Textbook, Chapter 5 (5.1 – 5.3)
Modern humans first appeared in Africa btwn 200,000 and 100,000 years ago
The Acheulian industries in Africa were replaced between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago by a group of industries known as the middle stone age (which ended 40,000 years ago)
The MSA is the archaeological context for the earliest modern humans
Tool manufacture in MSA (Africa) is similar to Middle Paleo (Europe), but with greater diversity and some a couple extra tool types
Distinct MSA industries:
Aterian (North Africa)
Points with a tang + fine bifacial tools serving as knives or hunting points
Sangoan/Lupemban (Central and East Africa)
Crude, heavy-duty tools; may be an adaptation to heavily wooded environment
Howiesons Poort (South Africa)
Microliths
MSA in Africa (modern humans) vs. Middle Paleo in Europe (Neans)
Similarities:
Stone tools made mostly by prepared core technology
Variability btwn stone tool industries
Evidence supports both hunting and intensive use of fire
Differences:
MSA more variability
MSA had elaborate bone tools, and clear evidence of fishing and collecting shellfish
Modest evidence of artwork in MSA
The Middle East connects Africa, Asia and Europe – so it is where AMH Africans and Nean Europeans may have interacted
In Middle East sites, you find AMH skeletons in Middle Paleo earth (weird – you would think Neans in Middle Paleo) – and also, their caves were the same as Neans’ caves in Europe (no artwork, etc)
When Neans expanded out of Eurasia (into the Middle East), you find Nean skeletons
When AMH expanded out of Africa (into the Middle East), you find AMH skeletons
Not one is older than the other – they overlap and criss cross
AMH expanded into Europe no earlier than 60,000 years ago
Around 40,000 years ago, Neans became extinct in the Middle East as part of a process that swept modern humans into Europe
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for the Middle Paleolithic
Identifying Cultural Process & Modern Humans in Europe
Cultural Process
Culture = learned behaviour
Cultural trait = some element of culture; a particular artifact (e.g. stone tool), or behaviour (e.g. manufacturing method) would be an element
Cultural change = change in the frequency of a cultural trait (e.g. an increase in amount of ochre)
Cultural evolutionary theory = an archeological approach which interprets cultural change as the result of systematic (social) processes (e.g. natural selection)
Cultural process = the underlying historical processes which are at the root of change
Primary cultural processes:
Innovation (an individual comes up with an innovation)
Cultural diffusion (the passing of that idea btwn individuals)
Migration (the movement of people)
These 3 processes explain most of the change we see in the archaeological record
But what is driving these particular (culture) changes? There are drivers, culture change is systematic
OR if culture doesn’t change systematically, historical contingency (random chance, no systematic way to understand it, series of unpredictable events)
These are the two views
Drivers (for the systematic-change view):
External drivers: environmental constraints (e.g. limited food resources keeps population size down; carrying capacity)
Internal drivers: innovation, drift, inter-group sharing, humility (e.g. value on humility maintains egalitarian social structure)
Drift: accounts for historical contingencies within a predictable framework (things happen, like broken telephone)
Synchronic vs. diachronic change:
Synchronic: variability in cultural traits over space at one time
Diachronic: variability in cultural traits over time within one space (could be through space as well)
AMH in the Middle East
When AMH arrives, Nean still there
Means that this place is a key location for understanding transitional processes, the nature of the interaction btwn the two species, the role of environmental constraints on both species, etc
We can explain that transition using cultural processes
Tools:
Nean:
Standard
Mousterian
Middle
Paleolithic
AMH:
Generic Middle (Nean-style stuff, not the regional styles)
Stone Age
Toolkits essentially the same
Skhul and Qafzeh Caves (120 and 80 kya, respectively):
AMH fossils, MP tools
Incised flint (we didn’t see those in Nean sites)
Shell pendants with pigments (we didn’t see those in Nean sites)
Like Amud (the Nean burial that had the upper jaw of the deer), deer antler in AMH burial at Qafzeh, boar jaw at Skhul
Regional cultural continuity between Nean and AMH behaviour
Nean and AMH: they weren’t occupying it at exactly the same time – oscillations of occupations in Middle East (like this oscilated with climate/glacial cycles)
Morphology different, behaviour the same – except for art
AMH have art
AMH Dispersal into Europe
AMH enter Europe 40kya
Nean gone by 30kya
What happened?
What cultural processes could have caused this transition?
Most controversial and divisive period in Paleolithic archaeology
3 basic models from the AMH perspective:
Out of Africa Model:
AMH evolved in Africa, moved into Europe as Nean went extinct
Early DNA results showed Africa to be the recent origin of AMH (100kya)
Lots of processes proposed: niche competition, warfare, coincidence
Coincidence: due to climate, Neans were diminishing; AMH just happened to walk in at that time
The archaeological transition occurred directly bc AMH moved into Europe and replaced Nean
Multiregional Model:
Gene flow between Africa and Europe maintained Nean and AMH as one species
How much gene flow do you need to maintain a species?
How do we test that?
Should expect transitional fossils, mixes of Nean and AMH features – and we don’t have that
Implied a very old divergence btwn the modern day world’s ethnicities
Implies a greater difference between races – racists ran with that, and it tainted the model
Hybridization
Mix of the two
Gene flow, and then we replaced them a bit
Tiny bit of gene flow, but not enough and they were starting to diverge as species
But then they interbred
Bc AMH had greater population numbers, AMH kind of absorbed the Neans (they absorbed Nean’s DNA – our DNA has some Nean in it!)
Paabo: this hybridization probably happened in the Middle East
Most popular model today
The archaeological transition occurred bc of interactions btwn AMH and Nean
“Revolution” in material culture around the time that AMH entered Europe
This is diachronic change – change through time
In Africa, they gradually developed beads, images, blades, etc
Then they moved to Africa in 40kya, after they’d already invented all of it! Makes sense that change was abrupt in Europe!
General Upper Paleo toolkit:
Blade based industry
Use of bone, antler, and ivory for tools
Split-based bone points
Ornaments of bone and teeth
Our exit to Europe lines up with mtDNA
In Africa, there was lineage “L” mtDNA
Then, you see a quick change to lineages “M” and “N”, at the same time as they go to Europe! So you have lineage “L” only in Africa, and then lineages “M” and “N” are found all over the world! There seems to be some sort of connection
60,000 years ago the lineage explodes
40,000 years ago they expand into Europe
Mellars lines this up with climate change:
Rapid climatic change at OIS 5 (warm) to OIS 4 (cold) = the cause
Resources started to shrink
It’s not until people are stressed that they are forced to change
This is a cultural process: an external driver for cultural change
There is an overlap of 10,000 years when both Nean and AMH are there
Transitional industries:
Chatelperronian knives (made on blades) and ivory tools
This is important, bc Neans didn’t make blades that much
Blades are an Upper Paleo / AMH thing
Found with otherwise Mousterian tool technology
Worked bone and teeth as ornaments
Nean teeth and temporal bone found in Chatelperronian layer
This means that this wasn’t an AMH site; it was Nean!
Before this was found, it was just assumed that it was an AMH site; since they had blades, etc – Neans weren’t supposed to be able to do this!
Chatelperronian Industry (40-35 kya):
Read “Paleolithic whodunit” (http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.ca/2010/08/paleolithic-whodunnit-who-made.html)
If these sites are Nean, could be:
Acculturation: they mimic what the AMHs are doing, “aping”
Innovation (on their own)
Or these sites could be AMH, according to this article
If it were AMH, Neans are claiming their territory, and that’s why we find their bones in the sites – territory marking is an internal cultural process
Diachronic: change through time: a later occupation changes the strata layers
How can we resolve this debate?
The site is gone, and we only have photos, etc – but that’s precisely what’s being called into question
So (remember the concept map) we make a testable hypothesis
The attribution of the Chatelperronian is keyà(an interpretative fault line)
If Nean: means AMH and Nean co-existed in Western Europe for thousands of years
If AMH: Nean was gone before AMH got there
There are very few Nean sites for the overlap period:
Zafarraya Cave, Spain & Vindija Cave, Croatia:
33-27 kya & 29 kya Nean remains
Classic Mousterian industry, very late Nean
Cultural process summary:
Occam’s Razor
The hypothesis which requires the fewest assumptions
You go with the simplest one unless good reason to do otherwise
The article’s idea about territory marking makes many assumptions – it is not the simplest explanation
Predictions
Falsifications
Upper Paleolithic
Starting 40kya, we have blade-based toolkit, faunal tools (tools made out of fauna/animals), art
Aurignacian Industry (40-26kya):
Dufour bladelets (tiny blades)
These things are part of compound tools; they attach them to spears, etc
Split-based bone points
Very widespread; covered all of Western Europe and into Western Asia a bit
Gravettian Industry (26-23kya):
Small hunting points
Atlatl spear thrower
A relatively abrupt shift in material culture
Italy and Greece
Solutrean Industry (23-20kya):
Leaf-shaped bifacial points
Shouldered points
Solutrean Hypothesis for the north American expansion = Europeans were the first to go to the New World, not the natives
Solutrean vs. Gravettian:
They are change through time, but they are also regionally specific
Magdalenian Industry (20-11kya):
Bone harpoons with elaborate bars – even more stylized
Cultural process:
Maybe need to fish now, find new niche
Acculturation – cultural diffusion between neighbours
Could be movement of people (one group takes over another’s space) or just this sort of movement of ideas
Historical contingency: one guy just comes up with an idea
Pretty widespread
Upper Paleolithic sites:
Hohlenstein, Germany (40-36kya):
Lion-human hybrid – the earliest art object
Shows considerable complexity (imagination)
Hohle Fels, Germany (40-35kya):
The earliest Venus figurine; made of mammoth tusk
Interpreted as a fertility symbol
Aurignacian
Lacks head and feet
May have been pendant
The earliest musical instrument ever found in archaeological records
Vulture bone flute
Dolni Vestonice, Czech Republic (29-25kya):
Gravettian Venus figurine – they are still making them in the Gravettian period!
Ceramic still no feet 10,000 years later – consistent over a lot of time! And space, since this is now Czech Republic
But she has a head
Chauvet, France (38-33kya):
Cave art (and this sort of cave art is very widespread across many sites)
Elaborate animal scenes
Why did they paint this?
Hunting magic (for pre-hunt good luck)
Fertility magic (some of the animals depicted are pregnant)
Shamans and trances (shamans lived here, and they got high and hallucinated, and drew them)
Mythogram of paleolithic worldview (it’s a depicted image of their worldview; e.g. the opposition of men vs. women, some animals represent men, some represent women)
Mezherich, Ukraine (15kya):
Open air site
Made of mammoth bones
Only 2-3 structures occupied at once
Small group size, under 10 people
There are a lot of these at this site, though only 2-3 were occupied at the same time
This tells us about the organization – only two family units would live together, maybe cousins
New hunting targets:
Carbon:nitrogen isotope analysis can tell us where their protein comes from
It can tell you even what type of meat
Nean: ate large herbivores only
AMH: ate terrestrial and aquatic, and plants
They were eating a broader mix of foods
Pestera cu Oase, Romania (40.5 kya):
Earliest AMH in Europe, contemporary with Nean
Highest N-15 of any human or animal in the study
This guy was occupying a completely different ecological niche (from Neans and later AMHs who came to Europe) for majority of food – likely freshwater fish
So maybe people were travelling along the river systems
Maybe that was their motivation for expanding into Europe
Cultural Processes of the Transition
What drove the transition from Nean to AMH?
Nean replacement for sure, but in what way?
What data could help confirm or refute these models?
Direct conflict over resources
Data required to evaluate this: look at both their diets
Absorbed with demographics
Demographics = population
Neans absorbed bc more AMHs; they were assimilated
Data necessary to evaluate: genetics to see hybrids, since we can’t find transitional in the skeletons
Nean couldn’t handle climate change
Neans died out before AMH got there, bc their ecological niche shrunk to nothing
They survived through two glacial cycles though! Maybe this one was different, bc they had become more sedentary?
Diet breadth gave AMH an advantage
Rich and diverse material culture of AMH
Symbolic representation sign of language & social networks
Textbook, Chapter 5 (5.4 – 5.6)
In Eastern Europe, the transitional industry is known as the Szeletian (bifacial points)
In Italy, the transitional industry was the Ulluzian (arched-backed knives and bone points)
The Chatelperronian is in France and northern Spain
Debate over the chronological position of the Chatelperronian in relation to the earliest UP industry, known as the Aurignacian
In all but two sites, the Aurignacian is stratigraphically above the Chatelperronian
In two exceptions, a Chatelperronian level is sandwiched between Aurignacian levels
This interstratifications of Chatelperronian and Aurignacian levels suggests that these two cultures lived at the same time in this area à possibility of interaction
In some areas, Neans and AMHs coexisted together for a while; in other areas, there was no evidence of interaction or replacement for a while – these are “refugia” (isolated areas)
Two refugia are: Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) + Ebro River, Croatia
Zafarraya Cave (Spain):
Nean remains dated btwn 33,000 and 27,000 years ago
This suggests that in this area, Neans survived long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe
Vindija Cave (Croatia): Nean remains 29,000 years old
The multiregional model is the least likely:
Absence of any trend toward modern human morphology among late Neans
The genetic evidence based on both mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA argue against a local evolution of Neans into modern humans
The out of Africa model has the most support:
It’s clear that AMH evolved in Africa long before they came to Europe
Fossil and genetic evidence support the Out of Africa Model
The archaeological evidence supports the hybridization model (transitional industries, refugia – they all point toward interactions btwn AMH and Nean)
The first modern human hunter-gatherer societies that lived in Europe are known collectively as the Upper Paleolithic
UP industries include microliths and bone tools, unknown in the Middle Paleolithic
Interesting that both of these tool types are known from the Middle Stone Age of Africa (bone tools, Katanda and Blombos; microliths, Howiesons Poort)
Human burials are absent from the Anrignacian
Beginning in the Gravettian, burials of indivs or groups are found with rich ornamentation
You can’t say that there is something inherently within modern humans that allowed them to suddenly have cave art and mobile art in the Upper Paleolithic – since modern humans lived in Middle Paleolithic for 100,000 years! With less advanced things
Hypothesis (Klein): a mutation occurred in modern humans 50,000 years ago – it didn’t change body morphology or size of the brain; it changed the organization of the brain, and gave us the cognitive capacity for language
This capacity for language led to the replacement of the Neanderthals, and the use of symbolism
Strength of this idea:
UP as part of a global transformation of human culture
UP linked with the African Later Stone Age, which also saw an increase in symbolism, and linked also with the colonization of Australia and the Americas
But difficult to test
Why Can’t We See Movement? & Anatomically Modern Human Dispersal
Dispersal
Dispersal as a cultural process: migration
In the material layers:
Innovation looks like a new tool
Cultural diffusion also looks like that – new tools
Migration: you could see migration when new stuff shows up in a site, where there previously wasn’t anything
So all three of these look the same, if we are looking at one site, one column! How to tell the difference?!
Migration = geographic expansion of populations as they increase in numbers
Demic diffusion
This is over generations
Not heroic colonizers
We’ve already covered a few dispersals:
AMH into Europe (OoA II)
Erectus into Europe and Asia (OoA I)
But what is the process through which dispersal happens?
Why can’t we see movement?
Archaeology sees the end product of an occupawtion
The longer the occupation, the more likely we are to find the site
Of those, we see a biased sample
Chance of seeing first regional occupation is zero
Migration is primary cultural process, no evidence for it (almost)
What does dispersal look like archaeology and genetically?
Who the first colonizers would be into an area?
Given the demic diffusion model (not heroic colonizers), the speculative characteristics of colonizers would be:
Juvenile males
Very low population
Minimal impact on landscape
Not in predictable locations
After you know a region, you know the landscape, you know the best spots – but the first colonizers would just camp in the first spot they find
Dispersal = a single species dramatically expands its geographic range and the range of ecological niches
Why do they expand out into new areas?
Population increase
Climate change
Climate change expands niche or makes original niche unstable
Difficult to correlate climate to specific sites
Especially if it’s not actually the first occupation
But happened during an interglacial (OIS 3)
Mellars’ mtDNA lineage “L”
Supports the demic diffusion model
AMH Dispersal Out of Africa
AMH leave Africa and their first stop is the Middle East
Middle East as early as 120kya; they are they to stay by 60,000
An alternative route is a crossing – southern route through Arabia
Open during early OIS 5 – interglacial
Authors assume this is AMH
Jebel Faya, United Arab Emirates (125 kya)
But at this time, the AMH tool kit was the same as Nean’s – more variation, but still pretty much the same – so hard to attribute this to one species
AMH in East Asia: their modern behaviour had some new categories necessary for East Asia:
Adaptation to high altitudes; you need a broader tool kit and more behavioural flexibility
Water craft
Earliest AMH in East Asia
Liliang, China (68+ kya; earlier than 68 kya)
Sketchy biostratigraphic dating – indirect, used other animals
An early modern human
Tianyuandong, China (42-39kya)
Lacks some AMH traits, has others
This implies that a simple spread of modern humans from Africa is unlikely
Suggests multiple waves of migration to East Asia
This is why this is an early modern human, not an AMH
China: continuous occupation beginning 70 kya (Levallois flake)
It’s only around 40kya that we see true AMH stuff: bone tools, perforated animal teeth
Wu sees continuity btwn H. sapiens erectus and H. sapiens sapiens
Continuity with hybridization; suggests they weren’t replacing, but they were interbreeding
Zhoukoudian Locality 1, China (750 – 290 kya):
Long term occupation of H. Erectus
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, China (30 – 12 kya):
AMH
Polished deer mandible and antler
Bone needle
Certain morphological characteristics in common with H. Erectus
Some argue support for multiregional model
No fossils from 290-30kya
That’s a long hiatus
Suggests erectus died out and AMH moved in long after they were gone
Wu: continuity with hybridization:
Morphological mosaic btwn typical erectus and sapiens
Oldowan persisted from 1.15 mya to 40 kya
At 40 kya, Oldowan still dominant, but others added
Sees incoming populations from Africa interbreeding with local populations (not replacing, not walking in on an empty landscape; merging cultures, etc)
A big nail is thrown into this with this discover: Ngandong, Indonesia (46-27kya):
Erectus survived here much later (classic Erectus, not hybrids)
Comtemporary with AMH in China
Refutes multiregional model if accepted
Bc H. Erectus is still Erectus when AMH present (two separate lineages)
We have Neanderthal AND Denisovan DNA in our ancestry
The hybrid babies had to have ended up with modern human populations – bc otherwise they would have become extinct
Denisova cave is this new third species was discovered – and modern Denisovan genetics were found in people in two islands off of Australia
The route btwn Denisova Cave and Australia – nothing was found there yet
This route is all: China!
But they haven’t found anything there (yet)
Unequal mixing: we have more Nean than Denisovan
The more outward you go into Oceania’s islands, the more Denisovan DNA you find
This disparity: due to migration
Siberia (where Denisova Cave is) and tropical islands both held Denisovans! So they must have been widespread at some point
These Oceania islands farther along (coming from Asia) – this is a funnel shape
And if there were Denisovans living here when AMH arrived, this funnel had an effect on interbreeding
As they travelled far into Denisovan territory, there was more and more interbreeding
Longlin Cave and Maludong, China (14.3-11.5 kya):
Species debated
Mix of archaic and AMH features
Rounded skulls with prominent brow ridges
Short, very broad and flat faces
Broad noses
Jutting jaw, no chin
Brains moderate in size
Large molar teeth
Living while the rest of China was farming – this was an isolated area
Hybrid of Denisovan and AMH? No DNA
Hobbits! – Flores, Indonesia (38-18kya):
Tiny, tiny hominins descendent from H. Erectus
They are only found on this one little island
Contemporary with AMH, though they were there for a long time before this, from other sites
Some argue new species, H. Floresiensis (some argue it’s the same species, just tiny)
1 meter tall
Tiny 380 cc brain (AMH: 1200 – 1400)
Like a grapefruit
Small even considering their shrunken size
Huge feet (like hobbits) – almost the same size as AMH
Possibilities:
AMH with microcephaly (disease that causes brains to not grow very large; and then their bodies don’t grow as much as a compensation)
Unlikely: morphology suggests that it’s a much older hominin
Island isolation caused size reduction
Sea level used to be a lot lower such that all these islands used to be one peninsula of land – this is the Wallacea line
But Flores was just outside this line – it was always an island, and then it became even more distantly separated when the sea level rose
So fewer resources there, isolated alone
So natural selection favored small creatures, bc they needed less resources
Support for this: elephants on this island also decreased in size
And rats actually increased in size
Strong pressure of natural selection on this isolated island
Flores, Indonesia – tools (95 – 17kya):
Crude but impressive given brain size reduction
Moore et al (2009) argue simple tools hide complexity in manufacture
Elaborated step up from H. Erectus technology
When AMH finally arrives they replace the hobbits
But some continuity in the new manufacture techniques
Whether this represents interbreeding or learning is unsure
Summary:
Dispersal happens over generations
Interesting things happen when dispersing into occupied regions
Replacement
Interbreeding
Learning
Chronological control is key and East Asia doesn’t have it
Denisovan and Nean: maybe just weird great-great grandparents (1-9%), but they’re still family!
Context Is Everything & Oceania and New World
Context
Context is much more important than the artifacts themselves
Artifacts in isolation tell us almost nothing about the archaeological record
Context = the relationship of an artifact or site to its special, temporal and environmental surroundings
Soil matrix (the soil around it)
Spatial relationships to other artifacts and fossils in the strata
Spatial relationships to physical landscape
Temporal relationships to pattern of cultural change
Climate and ecological reconstructions
What’s not found is equally important – negative evidence
Survey to test hypothesis
Cultural Resource Management (CRM): 85% of more of archaeological data today
Archaeologists need to be involved when building, to make sure cultural remains are kept intact
Biased spatial sample
We dig where hydro companies want to build, to make sure nothing’s there
But hydro only builds inland – so we don’t look much at the coast
The purpose of excavation is not to retrieve artifacts but to preserve context
Provenience: the location of an artifact, feature or site in 3D space
This is recorded in a number of ways:
Hand mapping: string, measuring tapes, plumb bobs for feature-level maps and profiles
Total station: surveyors machine for precise mapping
Geographic information systems: GPS, GIS, spatial analysis for site or regional level
Sampling rules:
Never dig it all: because future archaeologists will have better methods, and we don’t want to lose all that potential information – it’s for the anticipated improvement
Control statistical significance for extrapolation (we just take what we think will be interesting – need to control for that):
Random sampling: most basic one; you take the area where you think people where living in, and you get grid coordinates and estimates using machines
Stratified random: divides site into different areas you think will be interesting, then you take random samples within those
Systematic : every 10 meters in a grid, for example
Bc we don’t have time/resources to excavate an entire site
Horizontal vs. vertical excavation:
Horizontal: uncover a broad spatial area but only at one strata
Vertical: excavate a deeper unit through several strata, smaller spatial area
Taphonomy and bias:
Taphonomy: the study of how organic remains decay; what happens to those material remains at point of deposition (once the people who made them, left them behind)
g. did all the wooden tools decompose? Acheulian handaxes in East Asia may have been made of bamboo, which is why we haven’t found any handaxes there
Erosion, sedimentation
Soil chemistry and decomposition
Extremes are what preserve: extremely wet, extremely dry, extremely hot, extremely cold
Bioturbation
g. the Shanidar 1 burial with pollen
Animal burrows, rodents, etc
General human development on the landscape before we had CRM
Pompeii fallacy = the idea that most archaeological sites are like a time capsule
This almost never happens in archaeology
What we have usually instead is a palimpsest
All the occupations are stacked on top of each other
Hard to tease this apart and identify which bits are from which occupation
Colonization of Oceania across the Wallace Line
Nauwalabila I, Australia (60-53kya):
Flake tools
Burial
Context: other side of Wallace Line (the boundary, you could not go without a boat)
No erectus
Only AMH
This is the first site we have on the Australian side of the Wallace line
Erectus never made it across; only AMH did
Routes:
Across water, 90km (not visible)
Or multiple 10 km of water (separated by islands, so visible) – north route
10,000 years before AMH arrives in Europe
Lake Mungo, southern Australia (50-40kya):
Three burials
LM3 40kya
Red ochre in the burials (this is a modern symbolic thing)
Flake and core tools
Hearths, animal bones, fish
Articulated skeletons (articulated means “put together”)
The fish is modern too, but cores and flakes not so much – only some modern traits made it across the Wallace Line
New Britain Island, Melanesia (29 kya):
Context: not visible from land
You have to have confidence that you’ll occupy the island successfully and survive, etc – when you go somewhere and you can’t see back
So you need a certain population size to be sure you can occupy the space, and to be sure you can have enough kids, etc
Why did they go?
Climate
Resources: this island had really great obsidian (which is the ideal stone tool material)
Currents of Oceania have an effect on its colonization
Solomon Islands & Bismark (20kya):
Obsidian from New Britain
Bones from New Guinea fauna (New Guinea is far by boat; obviously trade systems in place)
They have mastered sea-faring: how to cross large water and make it back safely, how to navigate it all
New World Colonization
Siberian life (36kya):
Denisovan and Neanderthals in Siberia as late as 48-30 kya
Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition ~36kya
Horse, woolly rhino, bison, yak, extinct antelope, sheep, hyena, wolf, marmot, hare
What tools present here? Blade cores
What were they used for?
Shortly after this, 12-15kya, people crossed an area called Beringia (which is now under water, but was a grassland environment full of the above species)
Two routes that people could have taken into the new world, once they crossed Beringia and got to Alaska:
Ice-free corridor (like a narrow hallway)
Coastal route: more recent idea
Before the ice-free corridor opened up (17.0kya), we potentially have an occupation at Meadowcroft (in Oregon) – support for the coastal route hypothesis
By 15kya, we have Monte Verde, and Buttermilk Creek occupied – ice-free corridor still not opened up
The first Clovis site is 13kya
Beringia is still attached, north America is still attached to Siberia
Right after the ice-free corridor opened up, we find these sites
As the glacier recedes, water levels rise and Beringia is separated
Classic Clovis-first mode:
The first people to make it to the new world followed megafauna across Beringia and through ice-free corridor
Highly mobile hunting populations did this; small groups, limited toolkit
Clovis had killed the megafauna – this hypothesis was from the fact that the megafauna disappeared shortly after the Clovis
Big spear points to kill mammoth
Overkill hypothesis
Broken Mammoth Cave, Alaska (14-12.8kya): supports the classic Clovis-first model:
Earliest known site on east of Beringia, just as bridge closed
Large bison and elk bone assemblage (25%)
Additionally small game (30%), birds (10%)
Extensive hearths, tool making, butchering, caches of tools and meat, and clothing manufacture
Spring occupation only
The Clovis point was thought to be an innovation that hunters made once they got there, to kill the megafauna
Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Penn. (23-15.5kya):
Excavations started 1975
Oldest site by far at the time
Completely refuted accepted Pre-Clovis model
Even now only 40% of archaeologists accept it as evidence of pre-Clovis occupation
The Meadowcroft Debate:
What is the context under discussion?
The bottom couple layers (before the ice-free corridor was open; the ones that shatter the Clovis-first model) is what they are arguing about
What part of the methodology is being criticized?
There’s a creek 15m below the site; excavation dug down 12m
And creeks tend to rise in the fall
So when occupations would have been there, the water table would have rose and contaminated the evidence
Coal is another source of carbon – coal is a very old source of carbon
So the presence of coal would have made it seemed older
So they are criticizing their interpretation of context
What is their response?
Re coal criticism: they would have found coal particles
Re water table shift idea: selective contamination of just that layer is unlikely
Only the dates that refute the model are contaminated? Don’t think so
Suggestion that the contamination started low and rose up, but not all the way – but why would the lowest layer have the most contamination? Haynes hasn’t discussed a feasible mechanism that would explain selective contamination that all the while maintained the correct order
Do you buy it?
At the time of discovery, Meadowcroft was an isolated site – it isn’t anymore
Buttermilk Creek, Texas (15.5kya):
Published 2011
Ice-free corridor closed
Clearly pre-Clovis occupation
OSL dates can’t be contaiminated
Modern methods, no contamination
Irrefutable
15,528 lithic artefacts (so it’s also not a small site)
All small and light
Interpreted as part of mobile group
Monteverde, Chile (15kya):
First widely accepted pre-Clovis site (70% of archaeologists accept this one)
And it’s in Chile!
They obviously had boats – bc to run that distance would take too long
Strong support for coastal route
Communal hearths and small fireplaces within it
On the river
Remarkable preservation – we see wood! Bc this site was flooded, it has great preservation of organics
Child’s footprint
Scraps of vegetable matter – turned out to be a 15,000 year old potato
Chewing tobacco: two parts seaweed, one part (medicinal) leaf, one part potato
A half-chopped through piece of wood
Horn of an animal made into a tool
Bone points (for fishing)
Typical Clovis (13.1-12.5kya):
Pre-Clovis sites change context of interpretation for Clovis sites
The typical Clovis interpretation was:
They were chasing large prey, with spear points
They were highly mobile hunters, and that’s why they entered North America, bc they were chasing these megafauna
Maybe this bloodthirsty mammoth killer model is overblown
Given that we know people were in North America already
Maybe really, it was in situ development
And if you re-look at it, Clovis sites had organic materials, evidence that they were eating plant foods
You also find small mammals
Only a dozen mammoth kills known
Textbook, Chapter 6 (6.2 – 6.3)
Australia:
Migration routes to both Australia and the Americas led through East Asia
In glacial times, when sea levels were low, most of Southeast Asia was one landmass = “Sunda”
Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania = “Sahul”
These two landmasses were separated by the Wallace Line
Human occupation of Australia began 60kya, and they covered the continent quickly (within 10,000 years)
They therefore arrived in Australia 10,000 before they arrived in Europe
This may support the multiregional hypothesis – maybe they evolved locally in East Asia
Or could be multiple migration waves
At the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, there was widespread extinction of megafauna (huge animals; e.g. rhino-sized kangaroos)
In Australia, they became extinct between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago
Just after human arrival, and before the climate change (so climate cannot explain this so well)
This suggests that humans caused their extinction, but there is almost no evidence of humans hunting megafauna
Maybe humans somehow altered the ecology of Australia, and this caused megafauna extinction
Maybe it was through the humans’ fire-stick farming
People ventured farther out into Melanesia only 3500 years ago, when the Lapita culture spread across the region
Then these Lapita people spread out and migrated father
This cannot be explained simply by population growth – the growth doesn’t fit with the rapid rate of expansion
It may have to do with their social structure: the firstborns are heavily favored, so junior siblings might venture off
The New World:
3 models for human occupation of the Americas:
Clovis-first model
The Clovis culture (13.5-12.5kya) is the initial human occupation of the Americas
If true, we would expect to find tools in Siberia and Alaska before 13,500 years ago, the date of earliest Clovis sites
The earliest Beringia settlement is Broken Mammoth Cave in Alaska
The stone tools here are Nenana culture, which dates to between 14,000 and 12,800 years ago
Nenana = the earliest culture in Beringia
Pre-Clovis model
The initial human occupation of the New World dates back earlier than 13.5kya
Pedra Pintada:
This site does not claim to be earlier than Clovis, but it shows that around the time of Clovis, humans were here eating plants and fish as well! Challenges the notion that the earliest occupation was by Clovis hunters – Clovis hunters many be one of several regional traditions
This is also supported by Quebrada Tacahuay – people in Peru were hunting seabirds and fishing, possibly with use of netting, roughly contemporaneously (12.7-12.5kya) with Clovis
With Monte Verde, Chile, people’s main argument was that it’s implausible that humans would get to Chile before the Great Plains, if the ice-free corridor was the only route
In response to this, the idea of coastal migration came up!
One objection to this idea: glaciers may have blocked the coast, so they would have had to use boats
Also problem: no evidence of any early sites on the West Coast from Alaska to California
But the sea level was lower then, so any coastal occupations would now be submerged
Could be that people migrated along the coast and branched off to inhabit inland regions they encountered along the way
Clovis would simply be one of these branches
Early arrival model
human presence in the New World by 30,000 years ago
A minority position
Both the Clovis and pre-Clovis models agree that human occupation of the Americas took place during the later stages of the last period of glacial advance (the Wisconsin glaciations, or OIS 2)
This implies that the Americas were the last continents to be occupied by humans (except Antarctica)
This model states that it was much earlier, as early as 50,000 years ago, in OIS 3
Pedra Furada (Brazil): dating between 48,000 and 35,000 years ago
The only real evidence, fire patches and stone pieces (that they claim are stone tools)
But the fires could be natural, not human-used
And it’s likely that the chippings found on the stones are the result of the impact of cobbles as they fell down the cliff
They are “geofacts” – objects created by geological forces (vs. artifacts, made by humans)
Solutrean hypothesis:
Since antecedents of Clovis points were not found in Siberia and Alaska, and since the ice-free corridor route isn’t convinced to be a viable route, the Solutrean hypothesis was proposed
The origin of the Clovis people was not Siberia, but rather Western Europe
Clovis points are similar to Solutrean tools
But this would require crossing of the Atlantic, which is unlikely – and the similarities could simply be parallel invention
Also, there are differences between the two types of tools, and the Solutrean industry ends 5000 years before the beginning of the Clovis
There is tentative skeletal evidence that there were multiple waves of migration to the Americas
In the Americas (vs. Australia), there is evidence that Clovis people hunted megafauna – seems clear that that led to their extinction
Some archaeologists doubt that their extinction was the result of overhunting
It’s possible that an extraterrestrial impact event (a meteor, maybe) caused their extinction
Maybe a meteor caused fire and sudden climate change, and this in turn killed megafauna
There is some evidence for this, but the layers showing this could simply be constant and noncatastrophic rain of micrometeorites
Also a problem: the extinction was shown to be gradual, not catastrophic
Also: no decrease in human population at the end of the Clovis
Also: the “black mat” layers could be formed by a higher water table vs. burning
Megafauna in the Americas became extinct 13,000 years ago
Gainey Complex = an eastern North American culture contemporary with the Clovis culture
Clovis cultureà Folsom (12.5-12kya)
These and other regional cultures are referred to collectively as the Paleoindian time period
After the Paleoindian comes the Archaic
Late Paleoindian (10,000 years ago) shows evidence for mass kill sites
Late Paleoindian technology: tools used for hunting
Folsom points are the most sophisticated stone tools ever made
They also made huge nets
Criteria that distinguish Paleoindian from Archaic:
Increased reliance on small animal and plant foods
Technology for food processing, including grinding stones and stones used for cooking
Reduced mobility
Systematic burial of the dead
Wilson-Leonard site: an Archaic level (the Wilson component) lies between two Paleoindian occupations
The Archaic occupation: 11.5 – 10.25 kya
Shows that the transition from Paleoindian to Archaic was lengthy and they overlapped
In the Archaic, evidence of copper tools
The Arctic was not settled into 5,000 years ago
These societies = Paleo-Eskimo
2500 years ago, changes in these societiesà appearance of the Dorset culture across much of the Arctic
Began developing small winter villages insulated with snow
Reflects changes in adaptation and social organization, in response to unstable climate conditions
Heating from oil lamps (made from hunting animals that are rich in fat)
The ancestors of contemporary Inuit were known as the Thule; they spread across the Arctic from Alaska 1000 years ago
They arrived with new technology
A skeleton from the Arctic from 4000 years ago was found – DNA sequenced
No genetic relationship between it and the modern Inuit (that came from Alaska), but shared genetics with inhabitants of the Arctic regions of East Asia
Supports the idea that the early settlers were from Siberia, and that then the Thule replaced the Dorset
The arrival of the Thule coincided with a warming trend in climate
Is Agriculture Better Than Gathering? & the Fertile Crescent
AMH occupied the modern world; not Neans or Denisovans, they are gone by now
But some Denisovan genes
This makes sense, given that Denisovans were in Siberia!
Likely that as AMH passed through Siberia, they interbred – and those descendents are the ones that made it into the New World
So AMH, but with a little bit of Denisovan
Higher frequency of Denisovan genes in South America à supports the idea of multiple waves of migration
Agriculture
Agriculture appears all over the world at roughly the same time
The Near East is the earliest
Different crops in different places; independent innovations all at the same time
Was agriculture actually an improvement for humanity? Negatives in terms of:
Health
Safety
Risk (re food) (not a lot of risk in hunter-gatherer populations)
Personal satisfaction
Domestication = the process of altering the characteristics, through selection (though not always intentional), of a plant or animal until they are dependent on humans for their protection and reproduction
Agriculture is both plants and animals
Types of domestication of plants:
Seed dispersal
Rachis: the bit of the stem that holds all the seeds together
It shatters when the seeds are ripe, allows the seeds to disperse in the wind
In a domesticated plant, you make the rachis tough and unbreakable, so that the seeds don’t go all over the place
Because humans beat down the plant to break the rachis, so the seeds can be collected all in one place
This is evidence for domestication of plants, when we find this
Cuttings
You cut off a branch and plant it, so it grows a new tree
Paleoethnobotany techniques: to figure out what plants were being eaten
Floatation:
Organics float, soil sinks
Charred organics don’t decompose
Dump measured volume of soil into drum of water, stir, and skim
Abundance (to figure out reliance on plants) / cubic meter quantified intra- and inter-site
Pollen:
Pollen does decompose
Look at bogs, lake or ocean floors
Sites if preservation allows
Deforestation
g. if you see a dramatic reduction in tree pollen, you know they were cutting down trees
Phytoliths:
Part of plant made of silica
As they take water up into their roots, silica accumulates in certain portions of the plant
Unique shapes in each genus
By identifying the shape, we can categorize them
Sometimes found embedded in teeth plaque, or on tools
The plaque would build up and keep the stuff there – before people used to brush their teeth
Plant DNA:
DNA extracted from seeds, pollen, or wood
We can trace plant populations/evolution, just like we do with humans
Species identification
Track origin and spread
You can tell if it’s wild or domesticated plant from this information
When animals are domesticated, they become:
Weaker and smaller
Faster maturity
Mortality profiles: dead young males
Bc males are hard to control, and you don’t need many males to reproduce
And they don’t produce milk, etc
Extended geographic range (bc humans are controlling their movement)
DNA as well
The shift from hunter-gathering to the Neolithic (or agricultural) way of life – has been called a revolution
Bc it shifts every way of life
Economy:
Shift in control of food source
Mitigation of risk
Storage of surplus isn’t possible in hunter-gatherer life
You can extract more calories per unit area, but was area limited?
Food quality decreased
Mobility is a key shift as well – the amount that you have to move around to feed yourself and your family
In agriculture, you don’t have to move for food
And in fact, you can’t move, because of your food
Your food is stationary, so you must be too
Since you can extract more calories per area, you see a correlation with population increase
Carrying capacity redrawn
Control of resource
Processing technology
With the reduction in mobility, can’t run away from conflict
This changes the social organization of society
You start to need rules, and people to enforce those rools
Then status comes into play, bc only some people can control the rules
Then once you have status, you automatically have hierarchy
Specialists
Community labour
Lots of people working on one project; the people were probably coerced in some way
More in symbolic architecture
Surplus and status buy more symbolism
You have specialists in symbolism
All these things fall under the umbrella of cultural complexity
Cultural complexity = a measure of the number of cultural traits, and the number of relationships between them
Increases gradually, in general
Tricky term in practice – how do you measure this?
Increase in complexity DOES NOT EQUAL progress
History of perspectives on the Neolithic transition:
Childe, 1942: The escape from the impasse of savagery was an economic and scientific revolution that made the participants active partners with nature instead of parasites on nature
1980s: Rindos argued that:
Shift to agriculture was unintentional
Before agriculture, nobody knew that you could domesticate plants!
People evolved with the wild plants – a co-evolutionary, symbiotic relationship that changed both humans and plants/animals
Humans receive food
Plants and animals receive nurturing
An evolutionary accident
Ingold (1980s):
Hunter-gatherer’s trust in nature: at equal footing with nature
Agriculturalist’s domination: superior to nature (controlling nature)
It’s about the individual relationship with nature, that’s what the shift was about
The shift also represents a shift in how we see space:
Hunter gatherers perceive space as a series of points in a landscape, and the paths they take between them
No conception of area / boundaries/ bounded territories
In agriculture, there’s implied ownership over space, if you’ve been working on your farm
Sahlins: gets back to the question, was agriculture actually better
Hunter-gatherers the “Original affluent society”
Sporadic 4-5 hours a day of work (know when and where food will be)
Few wants, easily satisfied
Ethnographic examples all marginalized and not representative of pre-agriculture
Drivers of change:
Climate change
Holocene climate warmer and more stable
Makes sense in terms of synchronous timing (the way agriculture arises all over at the same time)
There is no other factor that would explain this – it has to be external and on a large scale, and climate is the go-to for this
Hunter-gatherers were doing well too
Population pressure
Assumption that agriculture caused pop increase wrong
Seems that population usually increased first – and then agriculture was taken up by an increased sedentary population
Mosaic explanation: growing acceptance that different factors, or combinations of factors, drove the transition in different places
Summary – carrying capacity extended
Unleashed a cultural adaptive radiation
Towards what depended on local circumstances
Fertile Crescent
Early models:
Agriculture = food surplus
Led to sedentism, population increase, status, complexity
Fertile crescent doesn’t fit this model
So we have to revise models with new data
Order wrong
Increasing of the breadth of the diet (both plants and animals) without significant change in housing
Architecture and complexity
Then agriculture (domestication of plants
Rate wrong (it was more gradual than we thought)
Fertile crescent geography (it’s in the middle east):
Ice caps from surrounding mountains caused floods
Rich soil
Because of Holocene, we have wet winters, dry summers
Full of wild cereals
Kebaran phase (25-15kya):
Followed by the geometric Kebaran (tools in triangles and rectangles)
The first stage in the shift from hunter gatherer to Neolithic
Covered the entire western portion of that fertile crescent
Ohalo II, Israel (23kya):
60,000 seeds and fruits around a grinding stone
Blade manufacturing area opposite
Male vs. female tasks? Men making lithics for hunting purposes, females making the plants?
Incredible number and diversity of plants being consumed
Wadi Mataha, Jordan (17kya):
Hog-tied man
His shoulders are overlapping – so they’d have to be tied behind his back
Interpreted as a murder
Broken stone bowl
Flint blade
One arm significantly stronger than the other
Ingold’s shift towards ownership of land?
We don’t see a lot of interpersonal violence until we get to agriculture
We start to have disputes, and you can no longer move away from conflict
Abundant plant and animal foods (all wild varieties)
No apparent status differences within sites
Sex-based division of labour
Really strong arm could indicate a specialist
Natufian (15-12 kya):
Ain Mallaha, Israel (14-11.5kya):
12 stone buildings at Mallaha (TPS)
The earliest stone buildings
5-6 m in diameter
What does this represent for the people who lived there?
Economy
Maybe they are now eating at home
You can store food better
Means they have a lot of confidence in their food base; it’s successful agriculture
Social organization
Family units (10 people can fit) – they are divided, since there are 12 buildings, not just one bigger one
Mobility
They were sedentary, stayed in one place permanently
Year-round occupation
Technology
They figured out how to build houses
Better tools
If you know you aren’t moving around, you can have a bigger toolkit – you no longer have to carry it around with you
Significant time and effort
What else must change?
Not a lot of status, since they are all roughly the same size
Technology:
Lunates
Sickle gloss (sickles are to cut wheat)
Ground stone:
Fundamental shift in stone tool manufacture
Different material & manufacturing technique
Much heavier
Shaft straighteners, mortar & pestles
Great amount of energy to build these
Long distance trade:
Particularly shell beads from Mediterranean & Red Sea
Obsidian
Social hierarchy:
Population increase
Largely egalitarian still
Natufian princess
“Fifty tortoises, the near-compete pelvis of a leopard, the wing tip of a golden eagle, tail of a cow, two marten skulls and the forearm of a wild boar which was directly aligned with the woman’s left humerus… A human foot belonging to an adult individual who was substantially larger than the interred woman was also found in the grave”
She must have had higher status
Symbolism:
Natufian princess (things were put in her grave symbolically) & necklace of course
Ain Sakhri lovers: world’s oldest depiction of people having sex
Domestication:
No intensive domestication of plants or animals
Except for dogs (bc we have a dog buried with a man)
Minimal evidence for the domestication of rye at Tell Abu Hureyra
Gazelle is still the main meat staple (which was never domesticated), lots of wild plants
Sedentism and population increase could mean all kinds of rules
Status implies a population increase
Grinding grain is very labour intensive, compared to gathering wild plants – that’s not great, re quality of life
Then again, doggies – good, re quality of life
Pre-pottery Neolithic A (12-10.8 kya) (PPNA):
Toolkit:
Bigger blades (vs. tiny lunates), more serrated, more sickle-gloss
Lots of arrowheads
Gazelle, fish, birds
A much expanded ground stone toolkit
Axes for tree clearing
Grinding stones (grain)
Bowls
Significant effort involved in making groundstone
Village organization:
Bigger settlements, 20-30 families
Community structures (TPS)
What’s the motivation?
They frequently contained storage areas, but they also had burials in them
They serve functional + symbolic purpose
Who builds them? Because they are not for individuals
Can the design, construction plan, and organization of work be done with leaders?
You need somebody to direct it, can’t do this in an egalitarian way
Can be protection from floods, attacks (could be a defense for the village), or ritual (burials)?
Whichever you interpret it to be used for, this effects the implications for leadership
Ritual and defense requires leadership; a community can together probably build protection from floods
Headless guy in burnt and destroyed structure
Interpersonal violence
The guy was decapitated and burned in a community structure – the building was set on fire on top of him
Körtik Tepe, Anatolia (12 kya) – PPNA Ritual
Skulls hidden in floors and walls
Array of symbols, grave goods
Domestication:
Only figs (cuttings)
Harvested wild barley and wheat
Sedentism continues, population size increases
Inter-personal violence seems to have increased along with it
Self-expression in the form of symbolism increasing
Lots of skulls in your floor
All the figs & gazelle you could eat
Pre-pottery Neolithic B (10.8-8.5 kya):
Toolkit:
Stylized blade-based arrowheads
Structures:
Plaster, layer after layer
Patches here cover floor burials
Plaster is directly datable because burned in manufacturing
Abu Hureyra, Syria
Shift from circular to rectangular buildings in this phase
Up to 5000 people in 1440 houses
These are cities!
Badja, Jordan
Multiple story buildings
Storage
PPNB Ritual
Plastered skulls
Buried in floors, dug up, and redeposited
Groundstone axes in walls
Carvings of people in bone
Domestication finally (10.8-8.5 kya)
Emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, barley, lentil, pea, bitter vetch, chickpea
Goat, sheep, pigs, cattle
Possibly related to population decline in gazelle
Village life getting crowded
Work tending fields and animals
But no more gazelle hunting
Possibility of specialist religious elite controlling skulls
Late Neolithic (8500 – 7000 years ago):
Decline in settlement size / population
Ecological degradation & deforestation?
Or herding? Animals need more grass space
Pottery:
Innovation of pottery and new symbolism
Plaster out, pottery in
Toolkit:
Arrowheads out (means they are no longer hunting, they have domesticated animals), sickle blades still in production
Çatalhöyük, Turkey (9-8 kya):
Daily ritual life
Bulls in the walls
Cows as ritual (not food), goats as food
Wall paintings
A lot of goat meat
Continuing all domesticates
Cooking and eating in pottery
Greatly expanded symbolic repertoire
Appears to be engrained in everyday life
Dense settlement could lead to disease outbreaks, sanitation issues, physical labour
Hodder’s opinion: “One of the conditions that made agriculture possible in the Middle East was a changed relation to time and history. Rather than immediate and short-term relationships, societies in the region developed a strong sense of temporal depth tied to specific places well before domesticated plants and animals emerged”
Particular places become very important; symbolic relationship to a particular place
Summary – sequence of agricultural transition:
Actual domestication seems rapid (in PPNB)
Interpretation for this: innovation & stimulus diffusion
Stimulus diffusion: once you have an idea, you can exploit that idea into all kinds of new realms
So once one crop was domesticated, it immediately became apparent that you could do this for other species
Pop size and sedentism gradual and out of expected sequence
Villages preceded agriculture
Is agriculture actually progress? Is it better?
Settled villages led to increases in violence, disease, social hierarchy
Perhaps increase in symbolism was part of coping mechanism for more challenging life?
Or maybe symbolism was just a way for the elite to leverage collective labour
Textbook, Chapter 7 (7.4 – 7.6)
The Early Neolithic = PPNA + PPNB
The beginning of the PPNA corresponds with the end of the Younger Dryas event
The PPNB corresponds to a period of improved climate
Small, dispersed communities may characterise the Late Neolithic, replacing the nucleated large village communities of the Early Neolithic
During PPNA, the size of settlements increased and the first evidence of communal structures appeared (though houses continued to be circular)
In PPNB, settlement size increased more – the shift from circular to rectangular houses allowed the site to be more densely packed
No evidence of status in Early Neolithic villages – all houses looked the same
Early Neolithic period = the “birth of the gods”; ritual behaviour in 3 categories:
Hidden rituals:
Ritual objects in pits or under floors
g. plastered skulls buried beneath floors
In some cases, plastered skulls were removed from their hiding places and then carefully re-deposited, maybe as an aspect of ancestor worship
Maybe it was through reverence for the ancestor, that these societies maintained cohesion
g. unused axes hidden within walls – these may have had a magical function
Display rituals:
PPNA: Jericho tower, and others like it, as visible symbols of the community (regardless of their practical function)
PPNB: the context for display now is within temples or sacred precincts
Suggests that access to visible signs of divinity was controlled – perhaps the elite of Early Neolithic society was a ritual elite
Daily life rituals:
Clay figurines had symbolic meaning
Animal domestication developed somewhat later than plant domestication
Sheep and goats domesticated in the later part of PPNB
Pigs and cattle were domesticated by the end of PPNB
The domestication of sheep and goats followed a fall-off in gazelle populations
Collapse of the Early Neolithic settlement system was the result of ecological degradation caused by deforestation
Could be that by producing plaster, humans deforested
An alternative idea: it wasn’t a collapse, but a shift to a way of life focused on the grazing of herds of domesticated animals
At the same time as the settlement system collapsed, there was the introduction of pottery (it replaced plaster production) and changes in the production of symbolic artifacts
Symbol system: no more skull removal and ornamentation; small figurines of stylized humans rather than animals
Also change in stone tool manufacture during the Late Neolithic:
The skillful production of blades disappeared, arrowheads became rare
Most tools are now expedient tools made on locally available materials with minimal investment of energy
Sickle blades remain common and often have a serrated edge
In central and western Turkey, there is continuity in dense village settlement through the Late Neolithic – Catalhoyuk (9000-8000 years ago):
Goddess figurines – some argue that Neolithic society was focused on a goddess cult
Main source of meat was domesticated goats
During the Late Neolithic, there is continuous decline in the role of hunting for subsistence
May be that the climate stress of the Younger Dryas corresponding to the end of the Natufian and the beginning of the PPNA was a trigger in the development of villages
Agriculture developed as a consequence of people living in villages
Villages preceded agriculture in the Middle East
From History to Science & Neolithic Diffusion
History of Archaeological Theory
Archaeological theory = ideas that archaeologists have developed about the past and about the ways we come to know the past
Archaeology needs a consistent way of interpreting the archaeological record
A “theory” is this explanatory framework we use to interpret data
Antiquarianism (16th – 18th centuries):
Treasure hunters, for personal collections or museums
They weren’t concerned with the daily life of people in those days – they wanted the big cool stuff
Eventually, identified stone tools & established stone, bronze and iron ages
Darwin’s evolutionism (19th century):
Darwin: established a theory of change – change isn’t just a series of historical accidents; there’s a system behind change
De Perthes: described association of stone tools and extinct mammoths
Lyell: a geologist, used geological strata to give weight to de Perthes
Morgan: defined social evolution as a unilateral transition from savagery (hunter-gatherer)à barbarism (anyone who had pottery; essentially agriculture)à civilization
He thought you couldn’t get to civilization without passing through the previous two steps
And if there are any savagery tribes left, it’s just because they couldn’t figure out how to get up the chain
Now we know there are multiple ways to get there
Cultural-historical approach (late 19th – 1949):
First real theory of archaeology and archaeological remains
These guys are interested in describing artifacts, and all artifacts (not just impressive-looking tombs and stuff)
Seriation established relative chronologies
Typology classified artifacts and defined “cultures”
Very fine division in their classification scheme
g. we still use types, we use handaxes
But they use double convergent handaxes, single side-scapers, etc.
Gordon Childe description of artifacts à societies of people
Neolithic revolution: Childe’s Marxist interpretation of agricultural origins
Processual archaeology (1949 – 1985):
Started when radiocarbon dating was figured out
Scientific methods, emphasized deduction, hypothesis testing
Identify general laws and models of cultural dynamics
Result was focus on adaptation to environment, symbolism ignored
They defined external forces but ignored internal forces of culture
Ethnoarchaeology: relating ethnographic observations to archaeological record
They’d go observe current hunter-gatherer groups
Post-processualism (1985 – 2000):
Emic perspective: view of prehistory as history (not science)
Cultural relativism (not judging other cultures from our perspective; each culture should be evaluated in its own terms, against broad comparisons)
& recognition of archaeologists own biases (our biases are build into our interpretations)
Role of women and children had been ignored; fix gender bias in interpretation
Agency: purposeful individual action within society
Evolutionary archaeology (2000 – present):
Kind of processual archaeology, rebranded (and with its criticisms incorporated)
Internal drivers are thrown into computer models, they look at things processual archaeology ignored
Cultural evolution as analogy to biological evolution
Human behavioural ecology (humans as animals within the environment)
g. optimal foraging, diet, risk-gain, etc
Gene-culture coevolution
A recognition that our genetic makeup is affected by our cultural behaviour
How we have modified our environment affects us
Gene and culture can’t be separated, they work together
Cultural phylogenies
Using biological algorithms that are used to generate species trees
Evolutionary tree for material cultures
Niche construction
People modify their environment in order to better suit them, as biological consuming entities
Neolithic Diffusion
Agriculture was first innovated in the Middle East
Spread of this Neolithic material culture to Europe:
8500 years ago: southeastern Europe
7500 years ago: western Europe
6000 years ago: Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland
Along with this, we can map the spread of different lineages of mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA
mtDNA à maternal history
Y chromosome DNA à paternal history
DNA gets diluted as it moves from Middle East to Europe
Bc farmers traveling into Western Europe intermarried as they went
We also have language maps:
The indo-European language family went into Europe and diverged as the romantic languages
All three (material, DNA, language: the Neolithic package) follow the same pattern of spreading from the Middle East throughout Europe
The Neolithic package: shift in all aspects of life:
Economy
Social organization
Language
Symbolism
This pattern is like the middle to upper Paleolithic transition
A complete shift, same spread
Neolithic diffusion models (these are primary cultural processes):
Migration
Independent innovation
Demic diffusion
Cultural diffusion
Kossina (1940s): Germans conquered Europe in the Neolithic, coming from the noble stock of German blood
Saw German stuff appearing elsewhere, he interpreted that as Germans conquering
Childe’s Neolithic revolution:
Control of food production as the cause of this revolution
Agricultural surplus allowed population to increase and culture to complexify
Migration and replacement from Middle East
Influenced by Marxism
Renfrew’s model (in the processual archaeology school):
Britain first (1970s):
Britains independently innovated our megaliths and burial practices
They didn’t like that stonehedge was a Middle East export
Britain is special
Language dispersal hypothesis:
Changed his mind by 1990
Mapped spread of Indo-European language family and connected it to Neolithic
Package of material culture and language, later added DNA to his theory
Everything coming out of Middle East as one giant thing, replaced the Mesolithic culture
Later added DNA to the replacement package
Zvelebil, Richards, and Heggarty: cultural diffusion
The replacement models too simplistic
Interbreeding and acculturation should play a role
Political climate played a role in this shift
Increasing perception/respect for hunter-gatherers
Cultural relativism:
Modern day indigenous groups
Colonization no longer in vogue
Mesolithic Europe
Invented bc they needed something between the Upper Paleolithic blades and the Neolithic groundstone
Culture-historical category
Upper Paleolithic: Blades
Mesolithic: Faunal tools
Neolithic: Ground stone
Childe’s “Dawn of Europe” solidifies definition and the variability of the timing
General material evidence (12 kya – Neolithic):
Faunal toolkit further diversified & specialized
Gave up on stone tools, except to sharpen faunal tools
Flaked tools used to make faunal tools
Groundstone axes and celts, both for woodworking
Increasing size and duration of settlements
Diet breadth extended
Focus on fish with nets, fish spears, weirs
Variety of animals & plants
Hunter-gatherer populations were flourishing under the Holocene climate
Franchthi Cave, Greece (11 kya):
Broad spectrum foraging: red deer, cattle, pigs, snails, shellfish, pistachios, almonds, pears, wild oats, wild barley
And tuna! This means they’ve figured out how to do deep-sea fishing!
Obsidian traded over 100km of Mediterranean
Burning England
Extensive landscape modification using fire
Brings game
Post-fire ecological succession edible plants
This is niche construction: you change your environment to suit you
Now it’s active (vs. passive)
This is correlated with the Holocene climate being favourable
The Danube river is the highway by with the Neolithic package entered Europe
Lepenski Vir, Serbia (8400 – 7600 BP):
Diet
On the Danube – so wide variety of fish species
But later, they switch to a diet of deer
As well as a broad spectrum foraging diet
Spatial organization & Structures
Many structures occupied simultaneously
Sedentary, permanent
Uniformity in the design of their houses
Communal space (an open plaza) in the middle of the village (same look as the houses, all the same)
Streets with paving stones from the communal space
Burials
As with the Neolithic, we have more well-defined pattern burials
Burials in floors, etc
One burial of a man shaped like a triangle! They put his legs together, etc – maybe bc it’s the same shape as the structures – symbolic aspect
Nothing elaborate like the Natufian princess
Symbolism
Statues of human-like fish
Fish is important in their symbolic repertoire – it’s a fishing village, they live on the river, it’s the main point of their diet, etc
These structures are “megaliths”
These statues are spread out across the site – it’s not that one house has all of them à implies that everyone is still generally equal in status (everyone has access to the rituals and symbolic aspects of life)
Alters
Everyone has same status, but there is a very strict way to build your structure
Intricately patterned rules
Terminal phase:
Neolithic sites appear contemporary with later stages
Agriculture has arrived, but they haven’t been replaced by the Middle Eastern farmers – they just keep on doing their thing
Reminiscent of the Chatellperonian problem
Cultural diffusion vs. migration/replacement?
This time, no morphological differences
If trade goods are showing up, people must have been showing up with them – but we don’t know how they interacted
The fact that they were already very advanced, means that they would have easily just adopted agriculture
Prior complexity facilitated cultural diffusion?
The fact that they were complex means they would have been hard to just replace
Their complexity complicates things
The fact that seeds came to them doesn’t mean the whole Neolithic package came too
Summary:
River and land resources provided abundant food
Highly complex sedentary hunter-gatherer society
Possible small status differences based on size of house
What effect would this have on their resistance or ability to change?
Neolithic Europe
Linear Band Keramic (LBK) Culture (7200 – 6500 BP):
A style of pottery
The first phase of Neolithic
In addition to pottery, we have Middle Eastern plants & animals
Independently innovated housing (they are not using Middle East style housing)
Instead they had longhouses (in villages)
Kinship & social structure within a 30m longhouse (This is massive)
Is this more similar to the Mesolithic housing, or to the Middle Eastern Neolithic we saw earlier? They are more like a scaled-up version of the Mesolithic
Hybridization of architecture styles
Diachronic change in the statigraphic record – we don’t see waves-of-advance
So different models are using the same data!
Models:
Cultural diffusion
Sees continuity in local traditions (housing)
Migration models
Sees abrupt shifts in local traditions (ceramics, domestication)
But what is “abrupt” enough for replacement?
Biases that made different researchers see different models:
Human capacity for innovation, adaptation
If you see hunter-gatherer to be savage and backward, then you don’t give them much credit to adopt a new way of life
Biases for or against colonization
21st century, everything is caused by climate change
Hybridization model:
Adaptable Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, coming into contact with Neolithic agriculturalists and having friendly trade, interaction, and intermarriage
This might be a bit of a utopian view
May be a bit of post-colonization guilt thrown in there
Massaker von Talheim, Germany (7000 BP):
Massacre at Talheim: small scale genocide, many individuals thrown into a pit
Initially suggested Mesolithic vs. LBK (this may be LBK vs. LBK)
Chazan points out this is absent from Lepenski Vir
The Mesolithics did not have this level of violence
Schletz-Asparn, Austria: 300 dead (this is LBK)
Herxheim, Germany: 450 dead (this is LBK)
It might have been contagion containment, except for a skull with an axe in it – this was no infection control
DNA evidence:
Decline of DNA frequency suggests hybridization
Since this was a gradual decline, doesn’t seem like replacement – points to intermarriage
Mesolithic derived vs. middle eastern
Lactase persistence in Europeans! Those of us who aren’t lactose intolerant, we must be from European stock!
Lactase persistence developed only where there are cows
Mosaic of explanations (over space): different parts of Europe underwent the transition in different ways
Mosaic – Arias 1999
Mesolithic populations: some would promote or inhibit cultural diffusion over space
Water-centric populations had an alternate route to cultural complexity
This populations had a different pattern of transition
Eventually, most of Europe did transition into agriculture
But different ways: adoption or replacement in different areas
Three types of transitions:
Replacement (more likely in the inland territories)
An early wave of Neolithic farmers intermarried and culturally diffused their traditions until they were adopted
Cultural diffusion along Mesolithic trade routes influencing change
Mosaic – Gronenborn 1999
“A combined migrationist/diffusionist model is presented, arguing for an emergence of a farming economy among hunter-gatherer populations in Transdanubia and the subsequent spread of this economy through migration. The new settlers interacted with local Mesolithic groups and adopted and incorporated local material culture and sometimes even aspects of local Mesolithic economy, a process which continued throughout the Early Neolithic”
Mosaic simulation – Lemmen et al 2011
Simulation model shows interaction of three types of individuals:
Migrating farmers (replacing)
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (adopting)
Farming Mesolithic converts (Mesolithic populations converted to farming through learning/acculturation, and then these groups travelled and acculturated other Mesolithic groups)
Makes sense that Mesolithics would be more successful in converting Mesolithics!
Converts played a key role in acculturating hunter-gatherers (HG)
“A small share of introduced technology is sufficient to spark local invention and trigger the transition”
Stimulus diffusion concept
“…predominant adoption despite migration”
You didn’t need migration in order to have adoption
History of Neolithic Diffusion:
History of theory has played a large role in interpretation of Neolithic transition
Passed over each cultural process several times, as history has progressed – as the political climate changed, essentially
The medium/mechanism of both cultural diffusion and hybridization is inter-group contact
Do they share their information, or their information and their genes?
Textbook, Chapter 7 (7.7)
According to the replacement perspective, the driving force behind the expansion = the population increase associated with farming
Language dispersal hypothesis: the spread of agriculture as the movement of people carrying with them an entire way of life, including farming, religion and language
In this model, a gradual wave of advancing farmers replace passive defenceless HGs
Evidence of burning in the Mesolithic HGs muddies the division between HGs and farmers
Clearly, the Mesolithic HGs were capable of actively manipulating their environment
Domestication of plants and animals emerged in the Middle East; yet maybe these Mesolithic HGs innovated some of this on their own – debate on this topic
A compromise position: the shift to agriculture in Europe is an interaction btwn incoming populations and innovative HGs
But what kind of interaction? There is evidence both of trade, and of violence, between Mesolithic (HGs) and LBK (farmer)groups
Learning from Comparison & Neolithic Africa vs. the Fertile Crescent
Inter-site comparisons: look at the similarities and differences between two or more sites
Expands the sample size
Allows us to build a broader understanding of how and why
Explore possible drivers of cultural change by seeing how things turned out similarly or differently over space and time
Regional level synthesis:
Aggregate archaeological data over a larger region
Study synchronic and diachronic variation in cultural traits
Often difficult to do in practice
Differences in documentation
Availability of reports and raw data
Ethnoarchaeology (type of comparison): studying living groups to see the “archaeological” record forming
Socio-cultural ethnography
Garbage
Structures
Depositional bias (what do people throw away vs. toss in the woods, what is organic and not likely to keep in the record)
Technology manufacturing
Why do we do it?
Interpretation difficult with no reference point
Stone tools once thought to be caused by lightening
Archaeologists are less familiar with hunter gathering than hunter gatherers are
Insight into perceptions of natural world
Cultural contact influences spread of ideas and trade goods
How to use prehistoric tools
Source of hypotheses to test against material remains
Expands limits of our imagination
Things we learned from ethnoarchaeology:
Flintknapping
Ground stone manufacture
Bead manufacture
Atlatls (bannerstones)
Poison tipped points
Preservation bias:
Case study in Ethiopia:
“tef” was a particular grain; roasting it isn’t necessary to manufacture into flour and bread
So the charring of the seed, etc – wasn’t done
So looking at the record, we would see other grains, but we wouldn’t see tef
So: potential immensity of the gap between what we find and what there was
Tyranny of the ethnographic record:
Range of possible behaviours much broader
Much more possible than what we see in current HG populations
Past conditions different
Reproduce ethnoarchaeology in the archaeological record
Emphasized bottom-up approach of “strong inference”
Experimental archaeology (another type of comparison):
Replicating aspects of material culture to better understand them and the behaviour needed to make them
Hands-on approach
Flintknapping is a very common skill among archaeologists
Things we learned from flintknapping:
How to recognize:
Flakes
Variation in manufacturing
Tools used in manufacturing
Importance of debitage patterns (debitage is the debris)
Strength of Neanderthals
Importance of raw material
Conservation of raw material
Heat-treatment
Use-wear studies:
Replicate use of tools to study damage and polish development
Another type of experimental archaeology
Another type of experimental archaeology = re-enactments
Neolithic Transition in Northern Africa
Fertile Crescent:
Favourable environment allowed for intensive harvest of wild grains and pulses
This allowed for sedentism
With this came population increase, complexity increase, organized villages and symbolism, and then after that, domestication
Extensive human occupation of the Sahara (14-4.5kya)
It used to not be a desert – it used to receive a lot of rainfall
As rainfall increased, settlements increased
Gobero (9700 – 8300 ya / 7700 – 6300 BCE):
We actually have a fishing village during this wet phase
Bone harpoons, hooks
Abandoned as desert took back over
Reoccupied again 6kya with cattle added
Changing rainfall patterns
Pastoralism: herding domesticated animals to grazing and watering locations and subsisting off milk, blood, and meat when necessary
These guys follow their animals over long distances
Sedentism:
Villages similar to Natufian
15 houses in two rows
Storage pits
Broad diet breadth
Grinding stones
But they already had pottery – in Africa it was right there from the beginning
Nabta Playa, Egypt (10800 – 6200 cal BP):
Controversial but important site
Argued for independent domestication of cattle at 11k cal BP
Early pottery of Khartoum style
Wells, status, megaliths
Early Neolithic (10800 – 8900 cal BP):
Lithic and bone scatters around hearths
Wild millet and legumes
Seasonal settlements when water present
Wells haven’t shown up yet
Early pastoral phase
El Adam type settlements (10,800 – 9800 cal BP):
Bladelet-assemblage
Endscrapers made on recycled MP tools!
Few grinding stones
Early Khartoum pottery
Status rather than functional given rarity
Possibly early domestic cattle
Mostly gazelle and hare, plus a few bones of jackal, turtle, small rodents, and birds
Interpreted as pastoralists visiting seasonal grazing grounds
Used for by-products rather than meat primarily
“Not widely accepted” that this was cattle
Recent mtDNA of the cattle: suggests separate African domestication (vs. Middle East)
Then arid period when the site was not occupied
Then: El Ghorab type settlements (9600 – 9200 cal BP):
After an arid hiatus
Reoccupied with toolkit of elongated scalene triangles, microburins, grinding stones
Few shards of pottery
Same cattle and desert adapted small fauna
Seasonal water settlements
Then aridity again!
Then: El Nabta type settlements (9100 – 8900 cal BP)
Large oval huts and smaller round huts
Bell-shaped storage pits
Deep wells (2.5 m), some with shallow basins beside for cattle
This allowed for year round occupations (except during summer floods)
Bone points, pottery
20,000 wild seeds of grasses and legumes as well as tubers and fruits representing 80 different morphological types
Possibly domesticated sorghum
Wild or domestic, they were harvesting for long-term storage
The next phase: middle Neolithic (8300 – 7600 cal BP):
Gazelle declines (as in NE, but could be hunting or the aridity cycles)
Wider variety of animals took their place
Introduced domesticated goat or sheep from NE, becomes important meat food
Cattle bones still rare, suggesting by-products favored
No plant remains due to preservation but storage and grinding stones
Houses common in clusters of six plus
Site E-75-8, El Nabta:
No houses, but lots of stone lined hearths
After most sites with no cattle, this one lots of cattle bones
Maybe this was desperate times, and they needed to eat the cattle
Maybe this was a long term occupation and the cattle bones just accumulated over time
Maybe this was symbolic – maybe this place was a ceremonial centre when communities aggregated, where they ritualistic-ly slaughtered cattle and ate them (excavator interpretation)
Late Neolithic (7500 – 6200 cal BP):
Another period of aridity
Larger hearth only sites
Projectile points interpreted as weapons as defense
Site E-75-8 reoccupied and expanded
Same aggregation site occupied
Calendar circle and other megaliths added
Huge blocks make usually empty enclosures
Most burial spaces empty
Complete young adult cow buried in a claylined and roofed chamber below a mound
Six other mound also have buried cow remains
Carved stone slab buried 3.5m below surface
Shaped like a cow? A mushroom?
Nabta playa – summary:
Early occupations took cattle to the Nile valley during dry seasons, traded for pottery
Later innovated deep wells and didn’t need to go to Nile (and potentially have conflicts with the agriculturalists there)
Seasonal population aggregation developed into calendar circle and cow burials
Uan Afuda, Libya ((9000-8000 ya):
Excellent preservation, even longer occupation sequence
“Middle Paleolithic – Aterian?” (Undated)
Aeolian sands (wind-blown) are mixed with MSA lithics
Mixing sands left no other evidence
“Epipaleolithic” (9700-9200 BP):
Microlithic tools
Specialized hunting camp for Barabry sheep (100% of fauna found)
Preservation excellent, only plants were for fire (evidence of absence)
Small hut with multiple unstructured hearths
“Mesolithic Pottery Bearing” (8765-8000 BP):
“Fill” is mix of dung and plants
Specialised fire areas, stone structures
Intensive use of wild plants, grinding cereals
Shift from “procurement” to “processing” of wild foods
Basketry could suggest storage
Painted eggshell
Decorated ceramic
Dung & grass in the back of the cave
“Early Pastoral” (7700-6400 BP):
Pick up the sequence at other sites
Domesticated sheep introduced from Near East (Smith)
Genetically unrelated to today’s African domesticated species
Merimde beni-Salam, Egypt:
Village with domestic cattle, sheep, and pigs all from Near East
Simple graves: bead, an amulet, or a reed mat
Rock paintings of people with cattle
Proximity to early farming sites in the Nile flood zone suggests domestic animals brought in by farmers before being picked up by hunter-gatherers away from the Nile
“Middle Pastoral” (6100-5000 BP):
Alternately occupied lake zones and mountain regions
Fishing around the lakes, mountains for grazing sheep and goats
Exotic lithic materials from lake zones found in all sites
Lake sites also had pits for large ceramic vessels, and hiding places for a few grinding-stones and hand querns
“Late Pastoral” (5000-3500 BP):
Rainfall reduced, lakes dried up
You would think since water is essential for cattle, a reduction would reduce pastoralism
But actually it did the opposite- it allowed the spread of pastoralism through Africa
Because before, the tsetse fly was a natural southern boundary (this fly bad for cattle)
But with reduced rainfall, reduced tsetse fly – cattle can now spread
Helped spread cattle-based pastoralism because the tsetse fly now gone
Focus also shifted towards Nile and other river valleys
Summary of Neolithic Pastoral Africa
Consumed wild grain and animals, fish at times
Small villages formed around lakes
Grinding stones evidence of extensive grain processing
Pottery was first for status, then storage (more functional)
Hunting with pre-domestication control of wild animals (Sheep and possibly cattle)
Domesticated species introduced from Near East, easily adopted
Pastoralism widespread before large farming communities
Middle East (ME) (or Near East, NE)
Africa
Wild use intensifies (plants and animals both) (due to Holocene climate change, favourable conditions made wild plants widespread and dense, and gazelle population boomed)
Same
Pre-pastoral conditions
Population increase
Smaller population increase
Complexity increase (pottery not here until after domestication)
Not to the same degree, but pottery as status
Architecture
Pottery as storage
Community structures
Small village
Megaliths
Domestication
Same à true pastoralism
Often new technology is like that (like pottery): first for status, then when it becomes commonplace, it becomes more functional
Textbook, Chapter 9 (9.1)
There is a lot of flexibility in the sequence of events leading to the shift from hunting and gathering to farming
In Africa, pastoral societies based on domesticated animals developed without plant domestication
The development of agriculture in Africa involved the indigenous domestication of plants and possibly animals, as well as the adoption of domesticated plants and animals from the ME
The current arid environment of the Sahara developed only 4500 years ago
Between 14000 and 4500, there was more rainfall, and thus human occupation
During the period of increased rainfall, small villages of HGs developed across Northern Africa
The sites resembled the Natufian societies of the ME (re their size, structures, exploitation of wide range of resources, and use of grinding stones), except they had pottery (which only developed in the ME in the Late Neolithic), and storage pits
g. of this = Nabta Playa, site E-75-6, 9000 years ago
Uan Afudaà pre-agricultural societies of the Sahara, between 9000-8000 years ago
One finding was wild sheep in a pen – so although no domestication, they were employing some form of animal management by capturing animals and keeping them in a pen
Gobero, a fishing village, 9700-8200
The site was abandoned due to aridity 8000 years ago
The earliest evidence of domestication of animals in the Central Sahara = 7000 years ago
No evidence of domesticated plants
First farming villages:
First domesticated plants in Egypt = 7000 years ago
Idea = HGs domesticated plants as a “backup”, and then it took off
In Western Africa, the earliest plant domestication = 3500 years ago
In Africa, as in the ME, small villages predate the domestication of plants and animals
Life, Bureaucracy, and Pharaohs – Ancient Egypt
There was a gradual development of the empire – it didn’t come from the sand or the skies
Gradual emergence from typical cultural processes
Ancient Egypt was in the Nile Valley
The increased rainfall allowed the desert sections to be more habitable – we talked about this yesterday
The Pre-dynastic phase of Egypt:
Rulers trying to control territory
It starts
3000 years of civilization building
The role of the people in Ancient Egypt is still a bit of a mystery
Role of writing in archaeology:
No one has had writing so far
Archaeology is interpretation of spatial patterns – writing is like cheating
Shifts to the tradition of historical archaeology
Archaeology confirms things, but we know all about Ancient Egypt from writing
The Rosetta Stone = a huge piece of rock that has the same text, written in 3 different languages (ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, Greek, and a Mesopotamian language)
We understood one of the three languages, so this allowed us to build a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics
Ancient Egyptian civilization is built on the Nile
Every year, a huge excess of water comes in to the banks of the Nile, and floods the banks – this makes the flood-banks – a new layer of nutrients washes up onto the shore
There was a strict boundary between habitable floodplains, and barren desert (this is a strict external force)
But if you build stone structures in the floodplains, they get washed away yearly
So houses are right at that floodplain-desert boundary
2 halves of the empire
Upper Egypt = upper part of the Nile
As you go up the Nile, strict boundary between floodplains and desert
Lower Egypt = down part of the Nile (where it ends at the Mediterranean)
Less strict boundary, because it widens
Cataracts – pieces of land to the South, un-crossable
Pre-dynastic dynasty: family linage of kings
Overlaps with the pastoral phases
Then early dynastic
Then first intermediate – when the dynasty collapsed, period of chaos
Oscillating cycles of empire consolidation, and then collapsing again
Predynastic (4500 – 3000 BC):
Similar to ME Neolithic
Imported domestic plants and animals from ME
Usual debates over acculturation vs. replacement
More likely that it’s Egyptians adopting, bc slow adoption of elements of Neolithic package
Also DNA supports this, says that Ancient Egypt was built by Egyptians
Burials in structures
Faiyum A Culture (5200 – 4000 BC):
Mix of agriculture and HG
Broad spectrum diet (abundance of wild, mixed in with some domesticated stuff)
Merimde culture (4800 – 4300 BC)
A neighbouring contemporary culture with the Faiyum A
Cool art culture: human masks, etc
Then there were a series of other archaeological cultures
Short lived, and defined by pottery styles
Early sedentism, mud-brick
Burials outside villages (in more cemeteries)with grave goods
Extensive trade in obsidian, pottery, gold, and copper
Reduction in rainfall
All those people from the Sahara (that we talked about yesterday) had to move into the Nile Valley
Except the pastoral communities more inland
Increased competition is maybe the origins of the Egyptian state (competition over resources and dense settlements – coincides with building of hierarchies, and control of things, etc)
Dependence on Nile Valley farming
Early dynastic (3000 – 2575 BC):
King Narmer unites Upper and Lower Egypt
The first Pharoah of Egypt
Before, were small centres of control, and the two halves had been fighting for territory, etc
Consistent struggle between the two regions for power
Typical of early days of an empire
Internal divisions, control tends to oscillate between the two
Cycles of centralized power, state collapse, and re-centralization often in the other part
The first burial architecture (origins of pyramid building) was modest – a stone tomb underground, excavated in early 1900s (so unknown date)
“Hierakonpolis” – unknown date, and unknown king
On the walls of this tomb, was an elaborate painting – of a battle-scene on boats
Next one: Abydos (3050 BC)
Not a pyramid, but a monumental structure
First large scale burial construction
We also find a fleet of boats buried in the desert, just after this structure
The first pyramid: Djoser Complex (2668 – 2649 BC)
Ziggurat: a step pyramid (vs. the smooth side pyramids we see later)
Seen in Central America
Behind an enclosure wall
Emphasized the status division, the sacred area controlled by the elite, vs. the rest
Snefru’s Bent Pyramid (2613 – 2589 BC):
First attempt at a smooth pyramid
First non-step pyramid
For structural reasons, they decided to shift the angle, so it wouldn’t collapse
Giza – Khufu’s Great Pyramid (2589 – 2566 BC):
The first one built (at Giza) was the biggest one built
Blocks of stone, vs. mud
Encased in polished limestone
Maybe capped with gold
Can’t see this now; all we have is a missing peak, and hieroglyphics depicting a gold cap
3 main burial chambers
The one deep underground was never finished
One higher up in the centre of the pyramid – thought to hold this king, but he wasn’t there when we found it
One higher up for the queen
Giza – Khafre (2650 – 2480) & Menkaure’s (2532 – 2503 BC) Pyramids
Khafre’s slightly smaller, similar build
Menkaure’s faced with granite slabs, but unfinished
The granite only goes partway up the side
The pyramids were build during the life of the Pharoah
When he died, they stopped working on it and started on the new guy’s pyramid
Thought that he died while it was being built
Valley of kings (1532 – 1070 BC):
Pyramids had gone out of style
They got smaller and smaller, until they started just using the valley
63 known tombs, latest found only in 2005
King Tu-tankhamun (King Tut), boy king, was buried here
Life in Ancient Egypt
Controlled by empire bureaucracy
Pharaoh is human reincarnation of the god Horus
Pharaoh is supposed to maintain balance, and order and justice in the world (against chaos and disorder) (maintains ma’at)
But in daily life, he really controls an army of accountants
Travelled to inspect, tax, perform ceremonies
Scribes accounted for everything, used to control population
Tracking grain from field to bread and beer
Most early writing is fore accounting
It’s the accountants that ruled the empire
The division of labour is also interesting – the people who built the pyramids
Their daily labour was divided into equivalent portions and sub-portions
Team, sub-team, sub-sub-team
Amazing logic to it
We can track their work with graffiti on the blocks
They were placed on the internal surfaces, the surfaces that wouldn’t show
“Drunks of Menkaure”, and “Friends of Khufu” – examples of team names
The unfinished burial chamber in the Great Pyramid really shows how work was divided (into 4 equal labour portions)
The 99% (the non-elite):
They can’t have just built pyramids
We just don’t know a lot about their lives
No urbanism (not large cities; this was an empire ruled over farming lands)
Lahun, Upper Egypt (2030 – 1840 BC):
Village for the pyramid’s workforce
Well preserved 800 m from the Pyramid of Lahun
Excavated by Petrie in the late 19th century
Wooden boxes with infants in the floors
Preserved papyri (documents written on papyrus)
The layout of the city:
Walled-in village with regularly organized houses of mudbrick
Internal wall separated the village
1/3 had many single room houses
2/3 had fewer but larger multi-room “villas” (much more comfortable)
Interpretation?
This walled-in section of the city = the labourers
The bigger area (but with fewer houses) = the elite
Construction technique similar to Mesopotamia
Maybe slaves were captured in warfare, and brought to the site to build the pyramid
Suggests the slaves had their own material culture
But the pyramid at Giza thought to be built by Egyptians, not by slaves
The workers at Giza had much higher status
“Friends of Khufu” is not slaves
Conscript / volunteer labour during flooding of the Nile (when they couldn’t do their regular farming tasks)
DMJM estimated 4-5 k people (not a huge number) built in 20-40 years
Cemetery nearby has 600 people, some with healed injury
Amarna, Upper Egypt (1363-1347 BC)
City abandoned after Pharaoh Akhenaten died (“the heretic” pharaoh)
This Pharaoh tried to make a lot of religious reforms – he tried to make it a one-god form
People didn’t like this, so after he died, everyone left and no one came back
So good preservation – workshops, bakeries, houses left intact
Multi-storied buildings, backyards with wells
Known for his wife, Nefertiti
Workers village: neat little rows of structures
Roofs made of reef thatch
Areas for keeping pigs
Summary – 99%
We don’t know a lot other than worker’s villages
Biased spatial sample
Nile floods destroyed floodplain settlements
Space beyond floodplain still lived in today
Slaves/conscript labour vs. patriotic volunteers?
Lahun: 2030-1840 BC, Upper
Giza: 2589-2566 BC, Lower
So they were separated by both time and space – these could be factors in the difference
Textbook, Chapter 11 (11.2)
To the south, the limit of Upper Egypt is defined by a series of cataracts (rapids)
To the north, the Nile Valley spreads into several branches, forming the Delta region as it flows toward the Mediterranean Sea
Egypt’s geography is unique – it has boundaries to the east and west in the form of desert, and to the south by the cataracts
This makes the risk of foreign invasion very minimal
The annual flooding of the Nile replenished the soil, so problems of salination found in southern Mesopotamia are not present here
This also means that irrigation systems weren’t necessary
The Nile Valley had no mineral resources, but the desert did, and the Egyptians used this
The Predynastic is poorly understood, but towards the end there were 3 kingdoms along the Nile Valley
The end of the Predynastic and the beginning of the Early Dynastic is marked by the unification under King Narmer
3 cycles of integration and collapse:
Periods of integration: Early Dynastic/Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom
Old Kingdom: Lower Egypt held the power
New Kingdom: Upper Egypt held the power
During the Middle and New Kingdoms, Egypt went to conquer through the North, coming into conflict with Mesopotamia
Also during Middle and New, Egypt was active in creating trade networks
Periods of collapse: First Intermediate, Second Intermediate, Third Intermediate
An Egyptian Pharaoh, upon his death, became the incarnation of the god Osiris, the god of the dead
He also had a special relationship with the sun god Ra
He fights for ma’at – fights against isfet, the force of chaos embodied by the snake-demon Apophis, which threatened the equilibrium of the cosmos
Extended family remains an essential social unit
Some even say that the conception of kingship was based on an extension of the household
Labour groups were organized perhaps by clan or extended family
Hieroglyphs were based on combinations of logograms (signs that represent a whole word), phonograms (signs that represent sounds), and determinatives (signs that indicate the exact meaning of a word)
Documents were written on papyrus, a reed native to the Nile Valley
Hieratic (a more efficient form of writing) was developed in the Fourth Dynasty for scribes; hieroglyphics were still used for monuments
Giza Pyramids:
The largest (and earliest): Cheops
The second largest (and second earliest): Cepheren
The smallest (and latest): Mycerinus
One of the most famous features at Giza is the Great Sphinx
At least some of the workers were paid in food rations
Egypt was a territorial state rather than a city state
Memphis, the Old Kingdom capital of Egypt, cannot be reached (it’s too far below the water table) – but we have uncovered Amarna (of the New Kingdom) in Upper Egypt
Amarna was founded as a new capital by the heretic king Akhenaten
He focused on Aten, the visible disc of the sun
New style of art; he and Nefertiti were depicted with oddly elongated features
After his death, his reforms were rejected, his monuments smashed, and his city at Amarna abandoned
We don’t know whether cities like Amarna existed before the New Kingdom
Kinship continued to play an important role long after the formation of the state
Why Jared Diamond Is Full Of It – Chaco Canyon, Easter Island, Incan Revolution, and Classic Maya
Jerry Diamond has become the public face of archaeology, and we don’t like that
Guns, Germs and Steel (1997):
Have vs. Have Nots
Argues Western Europe was luck in geography (not superior, just lucky)
Led to technology advances which allowed for world conquest
This is good; this is true that technology advances were a bit of luck, and that races aren’t all that different
Gives alternative to racist ideology of “racial” differences in ability in intelligence
But criticized for factual errors and overall flavour of Environmental Determinism
The extreme of external change forces we talked about before
It’s too simple – there is variation around the world not due to climate
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005):
Description of “collapsed” societies of the past with warnings of modern day hubris
Themes:
Overpopulation
Environmental degradation with over-exploitation
Climate change
Ego-driven rulers
Failure to respond to warning sings
Fault of the people – they didn’t react well (yes it’s environment, but peoples’ fault)
Criticized for factual errors and overall flavour of Environmental Determinism
The message sounds convincing bc it connects with our feelings (everyone’s worried about climate change, etc)
But the specialists of the particular case studies that he is supposedly citing details from: they point to factual errors, errors of omission, and a general lack of relevant context
After Guns, Germs and Steel, archaeologists argued it, but there was no collaborative counter-effort
But after Collapse, they did that – they made a volume of articles, but it was still too academic-y, and it didn’t have a huge impact on the general population
Specialists take on each of Diamond’s case studies
General disagree with Diamond’s use of “collapse”, “choose”, and “success”
Instead they argue that almost all societies exhibit “resilience”
The masses will make it, they will just go somewhere else and reinvent themselves – they will manage
Case Studies
Anasazi vs. Pueblo
According to Diamond:
The last (particularly strong, 50 years) drought was the last straw, to a population already weakened by social and political strife
And there was too many people, they couldn’t be supported by the environmental change
In building all of those small rooms, they cut down trees
Deforestation is a contributing factor in erosion, and the erosion caused entrenchment of the river through the canyon – which meant they couldn’t get water anymore
So the people leaved Chaco canyon (the city) in drones
Critique by Wilcox:
Challenges the idea that Chaco canyon was a significant population centre – it was a ritual place, that never would have supported large-scale agriculture
Evidence that the food was brought in (vs. grown in Chaco): isotope studies
It was European settlers (moving westward) that had been diverting huge amounts of the water for irrigation
And the cattle upstream caused erosion downstream
The drought was not that impressive
The descendents of these people are still alive today
People spread out and did their own thing in neighbouring communities, after the ritual centre was no longer usable
Secretive over rituals and symbols, even within a community
It’s not a collapse of population, it’s a collapse of the sharing of ideologies (they started keeping them secret)
Loss of pots of the Pueblo was interpreted as population collapse – really, it just could mean that moved! This is a flaw in archaeological practice
Easter Island (Rapa Nui)
Settled by Polynesian sailors (2000 km to nearest island, very isolated)
One of the last islands to be settled – talked about in the Oceania lecture
The winds to get there are against you – it was only settled by one group, once – it’s incredible it was ever settled at all bc of the winds and distance
They were agriculturalists: they diverted seasonal streams to irrigate agricultural fields
Raised chickens, hunted local sea birds at first
According to Diamond:
Deforestation, due to hubris of the rulers, competition to make the biggest monuments/statues
Society consumed with religious fervour (the monuments were thought to represent the ancestors) and status
Carved giant statues out of rock
People fought (and killed) over resources and land and access
Critique by Hunt & Lipo:
The rats caused the deforestation by eating the nuts
And people can move Moai (the statues)without wood (like aw fridge, by pivoting) – unlike Diamond’s version
Population actually increased in spite of this
When the Polynesians came, they brought rats
The rats had a much larger role to play in deforestation
It was compounded by people burning wood for fires – but smaller role
Rats didn’t have any natural predators – common problem in islands (happened in Hawaii)
The only remaining trees/plants were the ones that rats don’t like
And the highlands remained – bc the rats couldn’t reach it
When European settlers arrived, they brought diseases – last straw
Population of 300 mostly killed by European disease
Conquistadors vs. Inca
Pizarro, leading a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers (really, mercenaries/adventurers), was in unfamiliar terrain, but slaughtered thousands of Incans
Critique by Cahill:
Really, it was the Incans that were complex, and the Spaniards that were new and rural and developing
Incans were a more advanced civilization than Spain
A lot of natives fought against the Incans, bc the king (Atahuallpa, from Ecuador) had just finished a massive civil war – he had just taken out the previous king
Both sides of the war were diminished in numbers, exhausted, less organized than usual
They weren’t expecting this
The king was at a resort, relaxing from the war
The Spaniards conquered through bureaucracy
By managing internal strife that already existed, they managed to create internal divisions – divide and conquer strategy
So when they got to the king’s camps, they had natives that had just lost to the king and were pissed about it
Diamond ignores all of this stuff and just says that it was the technology (domesticated horses and weaponry)
Also: who wrote about this valiant conquest? The Spanish conquistadors! There was no other writings about this, no mass grave found, etc
You have to take these stories with a grain of salt
These guys were adventurers, their purpose wasn’t to be historians
The role of the Europeans in this is greatly exaggerated
Diamond de-contextualizes events in order to have them better fit his message
There was a revolution a little bit into the Spanish conquest – Indians revolted, and those who had suppressed the revolution were not Spanish, but the higher-status Incans who had allied with Pizarro
This was really a continuation of the previous civil war
Classic Maya Collapse
Diamond’s account:
Rampant warfare
Pattern of escalating warfare, spiralled out of control
Ego-driven rulers
Deforestation in order to make thick plaster – liberal use of plaster
As it nears collapse, plaster is thin, not used liberally anymore
The Mayans were adapting to the change they had provoked
The problem of severe deforestation was compounded by the Mayans’ increasing population
When deforestation happens, you get erosion, etc
Disease and malnutrition then occur – food crisis
By 950 AD, not just Copan, but many Mayan cities had been abandoned
Warfare a symptom, not a cause
People fight bc they need resources
The kings produced short-term interests (building a bigger temple than the king next door), and ignored the important long-term stuff
Environmental degradation from over-farming and plaster manufacture
Critique by McAnany and Negron:
Rampant warfare:
No evidence for widespread warfare
The struggles were more personal
g. a small group capturing another king, and demanding ransom (they only killed once)
Warfare was to demonstrate their might, vs. to kill
Bc kings were directly involved in their soldiers’ combat, they picked their fights carefully
More like small-scale raids
Over time, there are increasing numbers of descriptions of warfare
That’s all Diamond is using; there are no bodies
But there are also increasing numbers of descriptions of everything (every aspect of daily life); not just warfare
The proportion of the writing that was dedicated to warfare – didn’t increase
There was intermarriage between city-states, this created alliances – these descriptions also increased
And the statue of the king holding a spear – that was just symbolic
His name was “He of Many Captives”; not killing
Environmental degradation:
They were actually conserving their environment
Ego-driven rulers:
The abandonment of these cities – they moved more towards cities around water, they left the inland less populated
They moved to cities more centralized on the trade route – i.e. on water
These people are still around!
Diamond talks about how a drought made people lose faith in the king, who was supposed to be divine and make it rain
But really, it was a bit of a mosaic
In some areas, there was still rainfall, and it carried on just fine, etc
More complicated than that
Summary
Diamond failed to give adequate context
Placed his message ahead of his data
“Cherry picked” data
Numerous (often accused of deliberate) misrepresentation of archaeological data to support his message
Some kernels of truth to his message and his interpretation
“If you torture the data long enough, nature will confess”
Anthropologists don’t seek overarching laws, they like to contextualize, complexify, relativize, particularize, etc
They look for specifics – anthropologists don’t deal well with looking for broad laws
To do that, yes, you have to simplify
Cultural Evolution: Arctic and Sub-Arctic
Does culture change systematically?
Does culture evolve like biology?
The process of evolution (not the drivers): stages:
Source of variation
For biological: mutation
For cultural: innovation (that’s how cultural traits come up – people invent it)
Inheritance: selective parts of that variation needs to be inherited
For biological: from parent to child
For cultural: the cultural trait gets passed down from parent to child (vertical transmission), but we also have oblique transmission (adult to child, not necessarily parent), and horizontal transmission (in between groups)
Selection and reproduction
For biological: beneficial mutation = more kids
For cultural: selected for because it’s desirable
Time scale (important in the distinction btwn biological and cultural evolution)
For biological: on a generational time-scale – takes many generations
And the length of a generation depends on the species
For cultural: it’s within the lifespan of the individual
It doesn’t have to be that the infant comes with the shining new idea
An adult innovates over his lifetime
This is a key difference between biological and cultural: you don’t need inheritance on a generational scale
Adaptation
For biological: better able to cope with environment
For cultural: can also be an internal driver, not just external
Mechanisms of change today:
Innovation
g. stone tools, building larger multi-family houses (instead of smaller ones) in the Mesolithic
Learning with modification
Like broken telephone, message gets replicated, and over each “generation”, it’s changed a bit
Going from small houses to large ones could also be learning with modification – learning with modification is part of the innovation process
Drift
Random, when population size is small)
When population is large, law of large numbers keeps everything roughly the same
In a small population, random things could happen: smartest guy falls off a cliff
In a large population, these things even out
But in a small one, an event like this can really effect things
g. H. Floriensis – their tool kit diminished, they stopped using some tools they had brought with them from the mainland (they also started making new ones)
This “stopped using” part is the drift
Natural selection
Sexual selection
Coastal ecotone advantage:
Land and sea resources – you get the benefits of both worlds
Marine food comes to you (you don’t have to go chasing it through the forest)
This shifts the game in what’s possible
Large shift in material culture and behaviour – maritime revolution in cultural behaviour (probably gradual)
The first part of this shift is in economy:
Marine mammals: seal, walrus, porpoise, whale
Fish: salmon, other “anadromous” species
Birds: great auk, puffin, loons, mergansers, geese, eggs, etc
Migratory flocks come in yearly
Shellfish and urchins
Terrestrial fauna: caribou, musk ox, beaver, rabbit, martin
Marine flora: kelp
Terrestrial flora
Maritime revolution: mobility
Seasonal reduction in mobility
Food comes to you
Maritime revolution: surplus
Marine resources abundant when they come
Storage is key
Bc you can store food, you can store more than you need: accumulation of surplus (evolution)
This leads to more calories à more population à more cultural complexity (more rules that have to govern society, status differences, social hierarchies)
How many revolutions have we had in material culture so far?
Neolithic revolution, the invention of agriculture
Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition
Discovery of the New World – this is a great example of drift – it was a small population that made it into the New World, and their material culture shifted
Marine adaptation has potential, but there’s only so much you can take from the environment
With agriculture, you can modify the environment to suit your needs, make it have more resources (fertilizer, irrigation, etc) – but you don’t have the same control over marine environment
You can build better nets and harpoons to better catch the resources that are there, but you can’t make it give you more resources
There’s no niche construction
In practice, not every place in the world is appropriate for marine adaptation
There’s a lot of variation over space – some places you can occupy seasonally, some you can stay at year-round
Only in arctic and sub-arctic regions, do you have that abundance of marine resources
The northern latitudes – and almost all of them have had marine adaptation occupied at some point in pre-history
Northeast New World:
Maritime Archaic, Newfoundland:
Elaborate burial tradition
Associated with marine mammal hunting
Sedentism
Long-distance trade
Lasted almost 7000 years (more than double Dynastic Egypt)
At first, post-Clovis technological culture
Then 7000 years ago is when we see the first evidence of this elaborate burial tradition: L’Anse-Amour, Labrador (also the first burial in the New World):
12 year old child buried
With red ochre sprinkled on top of him
Buried with bone “toggling” harpoon head, walrus tusk, fish bones, and a whistle
7000 ya, this burial tradition begins
By 5000 ya, they’ve made it all the way up the coast, to Ramah and Saglek Bays (completely inhospitable bays) – no food resources here
People came here just for this rock, and then it gets traded all the way down to Maine – you don’t come here for food, just for this rock
Sandy Clove, Labrador (6kya):3 longhouses, they are clearly multi-family structures
So maybe this is a communal industry, to get the maritime resources together
A seasonal, sedentary society
Port au Choix, NFLD (4kya, but this site was here for a long time after):
Remarkable preservation
It’s a cemetery of over 100 people (that were put in over a long period of time – people came back to this place to bury their dead)
People lived here for part of the year, and if they died here, they were buried here. And even people who died elsewhere were brought here
Many grave goods, red ochre
Some graves do have more grave goods than others (so there is status), but no status differences by age or sex
So no systematic way in which status is attributed
A 12 year old have many grave goods – means inherited
Suggests early division within the society of status and hierarchy
The Arctic: not a continent; mostly ocean, with parts of North America, Europe and Asia. The ocean is largely frozen.
Antarctica: a continent, not owned by a country
Polar bears and penguins don’t live together – they each live on one end
You can define the Arctic in 3 ways:
Arctic circle (66 degrees)
Tree-line
Average temperature in July is less than 10 degrees Celsius: the AMAP line
Arctic areas have the following in common:
High levels of seasonal temperature variation
Summer adaptation
Winter adaptation
Low carrying capacity
Greatly affected by climate change
Reliance on marine resources
Affected by isostatic rebound
The earth’s crust is like a spring
When glaciers form on top of them, it gets pressed down
When they melted, the spring rises – but over thousands of years, so Finland is still rising – the land is pushed up
Some land becomes closer to the shoreline – becomes more shallow water; this supports more marine life
Isostatic rebound = coastal displacement
In Northern Finland, the coast is moving East, even today
Meanwhile, elsewhere:
The Neolithic revolution was happening
Intro of agriculture allowed for a more sedentary lifestyle, which leads to a whole bunch of cultural innovations like:
Villages
Monuments
Means surplus resources
Means centralization of energy (to get people working together), and a hierarchy/power
New technology
Ceramics: a sedentary population’s tool
Bc it takes a long time to make them + dry weather (which is not common in Northern Finland)
Also bc they are heavy
But they can be sealed, so they can carry liquids
They modified the ceramics by adding a material to make it less heavy – shows innovation
Specialization
Special activity sites – different sites nearby (but across the river) had mainly one thing (one site had lithics, one had ceramics)
Are these special workshops? If so, why across the river?
So tentative evidence of special activity sites
These innovations were adopted by the marine villages – why weren’t they innovated by marine? Why by agriculture? Lots of questions
Inuit archaeology in Northern Quebec:
Dorset
Arrived in Nunavik, c. 2300 BP
They didn’t have bows and arrows, despite the fact that populations before and after them on all sides, did
They didn’t have drills – they gouged all the holes they had to have – even though they had the rocks to make drills
They had tiny blades they would attach to bone (as opposed to making larger tools) – microliths
They had a well-developed artistic tradition – they had time and surplus, so why the lacking tools?
These guys, and the Thule, were more mobile than people in Finland
Thule
Arrived in Nunavik, c. 700 BP, replaced Dorset
They have legends that referred to people that were there before (i.e. Dorset), the people that made the drivelines (for them, they think)
So there was contact
Ancestors of modern Inuits
Had drills, unlike the Dorset
The evidence:
The site is quite a bit from the waterfront
A few historic, European-made artifacts
Some traditional artifacts
Traditional artifacts made with historic materials
Whale bones in higher areas of site
Caribou bones in lower areas of site
A lot of walrus, a bit all over the place
No evidence of dwellings or architecture
What was the purpose of this site? When was it occupied? Why is it so big?
At least one occupation was winter – so they would kill the walrus and the whale and drag them up the hill to butcher collectively
Whale bones are bigger, so they wouldn’t slide down when the slow melted
Caribou hunted in the summer, and they were killed where they were
We see no houses bc they were made of snow! Igloos
Textbook, p174 – 179
See Notes from Chapter 6 (6.3, the section “the New World”)
Our Service Charter
-
Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-Free
We employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers. -
Free Revisions
We keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed. -
Confidentiality / 100% No Disclosure
We make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service. -
Money Back Guarantee
If the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit. -
24/7 Customer Support
We have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.