Saturday, January 28, 2012

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Venus Figurines

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Venus Figurines
Jan 28th 2012, 11:12

Definition:

"Venus figurine" is the name given to a nearly universal type of art, appearing first in the Upper Paleolithic period between 31,000 and 9,000 years ago. These small, portable objects include carved plaques and 2- and 3-dimensional representations of humans, made of clay, ivory, bone, antler, or carved stone. Although the typical Venus figurine is traditionally assumed to be a voluptuous female, men, children, and animals are also depicted. Venus figurines have been found throughout Europe and Asia at sites such as Willendorf (Austria), Brassempouy (France), Hohle Fels (Germany) and Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic).

Theories about the function of Venus figurines vary widely, and include emblems of a goddess religion, educational materials for children, sex toys for men, and physiological depictions of pregnant women. Intriguingly, one view suggests that they are self-portraits of women, arguing that the body parts are exaggerated because they are seen from a distorted perspective.

Recent studies on Venus figurines include Olga Soffer's work on clothing and textiles illustrated on such figurines, and the flint-knapped images at Wilczyce, Poland.

Sources

Dobres, Marcia Ann. 1996. Venus figurines. Pp 740-741 in Oxford Companion to Archaeology, B. Fagan, ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lesure, Richard G. 2002. The Goddess diffracted: Thinking about the figurines of early villages. Current Anthropology 43(4):587-610.

McDermott, LeRoy. 1996. Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines. Current Anthropology 37: 227-276.

Soffer, O., J.M. Adovasio, and D.C. Hyland. 2000. The "Venus" Figurines: Textiles, basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41(4):511-537.

This glossary entry is part of the Dictionary of Archaeology. Any mistakes are the responsibility of Kris Hirst.

Examples:

Venus of Willendorf (Austria), Brassempouy (France), Laussel (France), Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic), Balzi Rossi (Italy), Hohle Fels (Germany)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Friday, January 27, 2012

Archaeology: Fish Traps and Archaeology

Archaeology
Get the latest headlines from the Archaeology GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Fish Traps and Archaeology
Jan 27th 2012, 10:30

Fish traps, which go by an astounding array of terms, are at least 8,000 years old, and were invented by complex hunter-gatherers all over the world.

Fish Weir off Deer Island, New Brunswick, Canada
Fish Weir off Deer Island, New Brunswick, Canada Bill Lapp (New Brunswick)

Archaeological examples are found in Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, and range in size from simple brush enclosures to massive stone built complexes to move fish just where we want them to go.

Read more about the latest information on fish traps and archaeology

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Mixed Cropping

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Mixed Cropping
Jan 27th 2012, 11:08

Mixed cropping, also known as inter-cropping or co-cultivation, is a type of agriculture that involves planting two or more of plants simultaneously in the same field. In general, the theory is that planting multiple crops at once will allow the crops to work together. Possible benefits of mixed cropping are to balance input and outgo of soil nutrients, to keep down weeds and insect pests, to resist climate extremes (wet, dry, hot, cold), to suppress plant diseases, to increase overall productivity and to use scarce resources to the fullest degree.

Mixed Cropping in Prehistory

Monocultural cropping is a recent invention of the industrial agricultural complex: it is thought that most agricultural field systems of the past involved some form of mixed cropping, although unambiguous archaeological evidence of this is difficult to come by. Even if archaeological evidence of multiple crops are discovered in a field, it would be difficult to differentiate between the results of mixed cropping and rotation cropping. Both methods are believed to have been used in the past.

The primary reason for prehistoric multi-cropping probably had more to do with the needs of the farmer's family, rather than any recognition that mixed cropping was a good idea. It is possible that certain plants became amenable to multicropping over time, as a result of the domestication process.

Classic Mixed Cropping: Three Sisters

The classic example of mixed cropping is that of the American "three sisters", maize, beans, and curcurbits (squash and pumpkins). These three plants, domesticated at different times, were together an important component of Native American agriculture, historically documented by the Seneca and Iroquois, and probably beginning sometime after 1000 AD. All three seeds are planted in the same hole. The maize provides a stalk for the beans to climb on, the beans are nutrient-rich to offset that taken out by the maize, and the squash grows low to the ground to keep weeds down and water from evaporating from the soil in the heat.

Modern Mixed Cropping

Agronomists studying mixed crops have had mixed results determining if yield differences can be achieved with mixed versus monoculture crops. If a combination of say, wheat and chickpeas works in one part of the world, it might not work in another. But, overall it appears that measurably good effects result, when the right combination of crops are cropped together.

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the Guide to Ancient Farming and part of the Dictionary of Archaeology.

Daellenbach, G.C. et al. 2005. Plant productivity in cassava-based mixed cropping systems in Colombian hillside farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 105(4):595-614

Horrocks, M., et al. 2004. Microbotanical remains reveal Polynesian agriculture and mixed cropping in early New Zealand. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology131(3-4):147-157.

Jahansooz, M.R. et al. 2007. Radiation- and water-use associated with growth and yields of wheat and chickpea in sole and mixed crops. European Journal of Agronomy 26(3): 275-282.

Sahile, Samuel et al. 2008 Effect of mixed cropping and fungicides on chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) of faba bean (Vicia faba) in Ethiopia. Crop Protection 27(2): 275-282

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Teotihuacán Warrior Burial

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Teotihuacán Warrior Burial
Jan 27th 2012, 11:08

People used to consider Teotihuacán the home of a peaceful theocracy run by a bunch of Buddhist-like priests who sat around gazing at the sky while allowing adoring followers to feed them three squares a day. That was before Buddhist monks took to the streets in Cambodia. It was also before depictions of Teotihuacán warriors and human hearts impaled on knives began to appear in the mural art. Then in the late 1980s, archaeologists George Cowgill, Ruben Cabrera Castro and Saburo Sugiyama decided to dig a tunnel into the center of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid looking for the tomb of the Teotihuacán king. The found a tomb; but unfortunately Teotihuacán looters had preceded them by many centuries.

However, they DID find the burials of over 230 individuals who had been sacrificed as offerings to the gods during construction of the building. Many were warriors, or at least decked out in warrior attire. Some evidence suggests that many were foreigners who have served in the Teotihuacán military but one day ended up on the wrong end of the sacrificial knife. Many died with their hands tied behind their backs. All were placed in groups arranged by sacred numbers in the Teotihuacán calendar such as 4, 8, 9, 18, and 20. Tourists are not allowed into the tunnels leading to the burial spots but knowing about them does lead one to think dark thoughts. Before becoming too critical of the Teotihuacános however, give some thought to our expectations of the young men and women who lay their lives on the line for whatever country we are citizens of.

Written by Richard A. Diehl

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Aztec Origins and the Foundin

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Aztec Origins and the Foundin
Jan 27th 2012, 11:08

Aztec Tenochtitlan, in the Valley of Mexico, now under the modern Mexico City, was the capital of the Aztec empire. According to native sources, it was founded in 1325, after the Aztecs wandered for years in search of a new homeland.

The Origins of the Aztecs

The Aztecs-who called themselves Mexica -- were not originally from the Valley of Mexico, but migrated from the north, from a mythical island called Aztlan, "The Place of Herons". Historically, the Aztecs/Mexica were the last of many tribes-collectively known as Chichimeca -- who migrated towards south from what is now Northern Mexico and the Southwest of the United States due to a period of great drought. In many codices (painted folding-books) the Aztecs are shown carrying with them the idol of their patron deity Huitzilopochtli. After almost 2 centuries of migration, at around A.D. 1250, the Mexica arrived in the Valley of Mexico.

The Valley of Mexico: An Occupied Land

The Valley of Mexico lies ~7000 feet above the sea level and is surrounded by high mountains and volcanoes. Today this area is almost completely covered by the monstrous expansion of Mexico City, but in antiquity, water coming down from these mountains created a series of shallow, marshy lakes that were intensely exploited for fishing and hunting, collecting plants, salt and water for cultivation. Because of its wealth of natural resources, the Valley of Mexico has been continuously occupied for millennia. Before the Aztecs arrived in the Valley of Mexico other societies developed there and exploited this rich environment.

  • Teotihuacan: Almost 1000 years before the Aztecs, the city of Teotihuacan (between 200 BC and AD 750) flourished there. Today Teotihuacan is a main archaeological site a few miles north of modern Mexico City and every year attracts thousands of tourists. The word Teotihuacan is a Nahuatl term -- the language spoken by the Aztecs -- and means "The Birthplace of the God". We don't know its real name, but the Aztecs gave this name to the city because it was a sacred place, associated with the legendary origins of the world.
  • The Legend of the Fifth Sun: The legend of the Fifth Sun is a famous Aztec myth about the creation of the universe and the origins of the world. According to the myth, the Gods, after the destruction of humankind during the era of the Forth Sun, met at Teotihuacan to decide which gods had to sacrifice themselves in order for a new era to start. They performed ceremonies at the pyramids of the Moon and the Sun, and finally threw themselves in a great fire. But the sun and moon were still immobile. So Ehecatl, the wind god, blowing at the sun, could finally move it through its way: the Fifth Sun -the era in which the Aztecs lived- was born.
  • Tula: Another city that developed in the Valley of Mexico before the Aztecs was the city of Tula. This, between AD 950 and 1150, was the capital of the Toltecs. The Toltecs were considered by the Aztecs to excel in the arts and science and to be brave warriors. This place was so revered by the Aztecs, that the king Motecuhzoma (aka Montezuma) sent people to dig up Toltec objects to be placed in temples at Tenochtitlan.

The First Settlement on Chapultepec ("Grasshopper Hill"), and the Princess' Sacrifice

When the Aztecs/Mexica finally arrived in the Valley of Mexico Teotihuacan and Tula had been abandoned from centuries, but they found other groups settled on the best land. Those were groups of Chichimecs who had migrated in earlier times. The Mexica were, therefore, forced to settle on the inhospitable hill of Chapultepec. They later became vassals of the city of Culhuacan, a prestigious city whose rulers were considered heirs of the Toltecs. As acknowledgment for their help in battle, they obtained by the Culhua king one of his daughters to be worshipped as a goddess/priestess. However, when the Colhua king arrived to attend the ceremony, he found one of the priest dressed with the flayed skin of her daughter: Hutzilopochtli asked for the sacrifice of the princess. This provoked a clash and the defeat of the Mexica who had to leave and moved to some marshy islands in the middle of the lake.

Tenochtitlan, "The place of the Fruit of the Prickly Pear Cactus"

According to the myth, after weeks of wandering, Huitzilopochtli appeared to the Mexica leaders and guided his people to a place where a great eagle perched on a cactus killing a snake. This was the place elected for them by the god, the place where they will found their capital Tenochtitlan. The year was 2 Calli (Two House) or A.D. 1325. Tenochtitlan rapidly grew as a commercial and military center. The Mexica were skillful and fierce soldiers and created solid alliances with the surrounding cities. The apparently unfortunate position of their city, actually facilitates economic connections using canoes and boats across the lakes and at the same time helped against military attacks. The city grew rapidly, with palaces and well organized residential areas and aqueducts that provided fresh water to the city from the mountains. At the center of the city stood the sacred precinct with ball courts, schools for nobles, priests' quarters and the ceremonial heart of the city and of the whole empire: the Great Temple of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, the Huey Teocalli (the Great House of the Gods). This was a stepped pyramid with a double temple on top dedicated to Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc, the main deities of the Aztecs.

The temple, decorated with bright colors, was rebuilt many times during Aztec history, the 7th and last version was the one seen and described by Hernan Cortés and the Conquistadors. When, on November 8 1519, Hernan Cortés and his soldiers entered the Aztec capital, they were entering one of the largest cities in the world, many of them had never seen a city like that before.

Sources

Smith Michael, 2003, The Aztecs, Second Edition, Blackwell Publishing

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Site Formation Processes

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Site Formation Processes
Jan 27th 2012, 11:08

Definition:

In archaeology, the term Site Formation Processesâ€"or more simply formation processesâ€"refers to the events that created and affected an archaeological site after its creation.

Two classes of formation processes are recognized: culturally created (C-transforms) and naturally created (N-transforms). C-transforms that might have affected an assemblage at an archaeological site include purposeful and accidental discard of objects or burning and demolition of structures. N-transforms could include earthquakes or rodent burrowing or vegetation growth or normal decay.

Site Formation Processes is a core concept in archaeology, developed by Michael Brian Schiffer in the 1970s, and although the pendulum between scientific and cultural archaeology may swing away from process, SFP remains an immensely useful point of discussion.

Sources

Binford, Lewis R. 1981 Behavioral archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise". Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3):195-208.

Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255-273.

Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow smoke and dog's tails: Hunter gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record]Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1985 Is there a "Pompeii premise" in archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41:18-41.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1983 Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity 48:675-706.

Villa, Paola 1982 Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47:276-310.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Timing is Everything

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Timing is Everything
Jan 27th 2012, 11:08

Archaeological Dating Table of Contents | Part 2: Chronological Markers and Dendrochronology | Part 3: The Radiocarbon Revolution | Part 4: New Fangled Methods

It is certainly no exaggeration to call the invention of radiocarbon dating a revolution. It finally provided the first common chronometric scale which could be applied across the world. Invented in the latter years of the 1940s by Willard Libby and his students and colleagues James R. Arnold and Ernest C. Anderson, radiocarbon dating was an outgrowth of the Manhattan Project, and was developed at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory.

Although I am hardly a chemist or a physicist, and so will leave the detailed explanations to those who are better at it than I (for example, Anne Marie Helmenstine's page in About Chemistry), essentially radiocarbon dating uses the amount of carbon 14 available in living creatures as a measuring stick. All living things maintain a content of carbon 14 in equilibrium with that available in the atmosphere, right up to the moment of death. When an organism dies, the amount of C14 available within it begins to decay at a half life rate of 5730 years; i.e., it takes 5730 years for 1/2 of the C14 available in the organism to decay. Comparing the amount of C14 in a dead organism to available levels in the atmosphere, produces an estimate of when that organism died. So, for example, if a tree was used as a support for a structure, the date that tree stopped living (i.e., when it was cut down) can be used to date the building's construction date.

The organisms which can be used in radiocarbon dating include charcoal, wood, marine shell, human or animal bone, antler, peat; in fact, most of what contains carbon during its life cycle can be used, assuming it's preserved in the archaeological record. The farthest back C14 can be used is about 10 half lives, or 57,000 years; the most recent, relatively reliable dates end at the Industrial Revolution, when humankind busied itself messing up the natural quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. Further limitations, such as the prevalence of modern environmental contamination, require that several dates (called a suite) be taken on different associated samples to permit a range of estimated dates.

Calibration

In the 50 or so years since Libby and his associates created the radiocarbon dating technique, refinements and calibrations have both improved the technique and revealed its weaknesses. Calibration of the dates may be completed by looking through tree ring data for a ring exhibiting the same amount of C14 as in a particular sample--thus providing a known date for the sample. Such investigations have identified wiggles in the data curve, such as at the end of the Archaic period in the United States, when atmospheric C14 fluctuated, adding further complexity to calibration.

One of the first modifications to C14 dating came about in the first decade after the Libby-Arnold-Anderson work at Chicago. One limitation of the original C14 dating method is that it measures the current radioactive emissions; Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dating counts the atoms themselves, allowing for sample sizes up to 1000 times smaller than conventional C14 samples.

While neither the first nor the last absolute dating methodology, C14 dating practices were clearly the most revolutionary, and some say helped to usher in a new scientific period to the field of archaeology.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Human Migration

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Human Migration
Jan 26th 2012, 11:08

So, about 50,000-100,000 years ago, humans left Africa from east Africa near the Red Sea. The same pattern that made us populate Africa, made us populate the world, with groups splitting off and regrouping. The people who hold genetic markers for all of us, for every single living person in the world today, are descendants of those who stayed behindâ€"the original founding colony. Those who hold the fewest genetic markers in common with the rest of us, are those that traveled the farthest, the end result of all those splits, the last wave of adventurers, who split off from groups in east Asia and colonized the Americas and Polynesia.

The people who today hold the most diverse genetic structure in the world are the San bushmen of South Africa. This isn't a new finding, but it confirms the findings of earlier research of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes. Thus, the San are likely to be the descendants of the first group who stayed behind, the first group of humans who colonized Africa and then the rest of the world.

The San aren't "older" than any of us, we are all the same time distance from those first colonists, but they are the descendants of those who stayed behind, and not descended from those of us who wandered off. Interestingly, the DNA research is supported by the linguistic research as well.

Sources and Further Information

Tishkoff, Sarah A., et al. 2009 The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans. Science Express. 30 April 2009

Human Migration from Africa: Four Theories

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Cotton (Gossypium)

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Cotton (Gossypium)
Jan 26th 2012, 11:08

Cotton (Gossypium sp.) belongs to the Malvaceae  family and is one of the most important and earliest domesticated plants in the world. It was domesticated independently both in the Old World and in the New World.

The word "cotton" originated from the Arabic term al qutn, which became in Spanish algodón and cotton in English.

Among the different domesticated species, the most widespread are G. arboreum L. and G. herbaceum L. domesticated in the Old World; and G.hirsutum and G. barbadense domesticated in the New World.

Old World Cotton

Cotton was first domesticated in the Old World about 7,000 years ago. The two main species, G. arboreum and G. herbaceum, are genetically very different and probably diverged well before domestication. Cultivation of G. arboreum began in the Indus Valley of India and Pakistan, and then spread over Africa and Asia, whereas G. herbaceum was first cultivated in Arabia and Syria.

Specialists agree that the wild progenitor of G. herbaceum was an African species, whereas the ancestor of G. arboreum is still unknown. Regions of possible origin of the G. arboreum wild progenitor vary from Madagascar and the Indus Valley, where the most ancient evidence of cultivated cotton was found.

G.herbaceum

This type of cotton traditionally grew in African open forests and grasslands. Characteristics of its wild species are higher plant, compared to the domesticated shrubs, smaller fruit and thicker seed coats. Unfortunately, no clear domesticated remains of G. herbaceum have been recovered from archaeological contexts. However, the distribution of its closest wild progenitor suggests a northward distribution toward North Africa, and the Near East.

G. arboreum

Abundant archaeological evidence exists for the domestication and use of G. arboreum. Mehrgarh, the earliest agricultural village of the Indus Valley, presents evidence of cotton seeds and fibers dating to ca 6000 B.C. At Mohenjo-Daro, the famous archaeological site on the Indus river, fragments of cloth and cotton textiles have been dated to the fourth millennium B.C., and archaeologists agree that most of the trade that made the city grow was based on cotton exportation. In the second millennium B.C. from India, cotton reached the Babylonian kingdoms, Egypt and, later on, Europe.

Among the different domesticated species, the most widespread are G. arboreum L. and G. herbaceum L. domesticated in the Old World; and G.hirsutum and G. barbadense domesticated in the New World. Among the American species, G. hirsutum was apparently cultivated first in Mexico, and G. barbadense in Peru. Some archaeologists believe, alternatively, that the earliest type of cotton was introduced into Mesoamerica as an already domesticated form of G. barbadense from coastal Ecuador and Peru. However, most believe that G. hirsutum was independently domesticated in Mesoamerica.

New World Cotton

Among the American species, G. hirsutum was apparently cultivated first in Mexico, and G. barbadense in Peru. Some archaeologists believe, alternatively, that the earliest type of cotton was introduced into Mesoamerica as an already domesticated form of G. barbadense from coastal Ecuador and Peru. However, most believe that G. hirsutum was independently domesticated in Mesoamerica.

G. hirsutum

The oldest evidence of Gossypium hirsutum in Mesoamerica comes from the Tehuacan valley and has been dated between 3400 and 2300 BC. In different caves of the area, archaeologists affiliated to the project of Richard MacNeish found remains of fully domesticated examples of this cotton.

Recent studies have allowed the comparison of bolls and cotton seeds from excavation in Guila Naquitz Cave, Oaxaca, with living examples of wild and cultivated G. hirsutum punctatum, showing that they might come from the same species, originally domesticated in the Yucatan Peninsula.

In different eras and among different Mesoamerican cultures, cotton was a highly demanded good and a precious exchange item. Maya and Aztec merchants traded cotton with other luxury items, and nobles adorned themselves with preciously woven and colored mantles.

Aztec kings often offered cotton products to noble visitors as gifts and to army leaders as payment.

G. barbadense

The first clear evidence of domestication of this type of cotton comes from Ancon, a site on the Peruvian coast where archaeologists found remains of cotton bolls dating to 4200 BC. By 1000 BC Peruvian cotton bolls were indistinguishable from modern cultivars of G. barbadense.

Archaeological examples of this type of cotton has been found in different sites of Peru and Ecuador, especially Ancón, in the central coast of Peru.

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the guide to the Domestication of Plants, and the Dictionary of Archaeology.

Hancock, James, F., 2004, Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species. Second Edition. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA

Mannion A.M., 1999, Domestication and the origins of Agriculture: an appraisal, in Progress in Physical Geography 23, 1, pp. 37â€"56.

Murphy, Denis J., 2007, People, Plants, and Genes. The Story of Crops and Humanity, Oxford University Press.

Pearsall Deborah M., 2008, Plant Domestication and the Shift to Agriculture in the Andes, in The Handbook of South America Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William Isbell, Springer, pp.105-120.

Stephens, S.G., and M. Edward Moseley, 1974, Early Domesticated Cottons from Archaeological Sites in Central Coastal Peru, American Antiquity, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 109-122.

Wendel, Jonathan F., Curt L. Brubaker, and Tosak Seelanan, 2010, The Origin and Evolution of Gossypium, in  Physiology of Cotton, edited by James McD. Stewart, Derrick M. Oosterhuis, James J. Heitholt and Jackson R. Mauney, Springer, pp. 1-18

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Amelia Earhart's Fate

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Amelia Earhart's Fate
Jan 26th 2012, 11:08

It costs over half a million U.S. dollars to take a reasonable sized archaeological team to Nikumaroro and keep it there for a month or so, and since our last full-scale expedition--we were on the island on 9-11-01--fundraising for the pursuit of obscure mysteries has become even harder than it used to be. We’re hoping to get a team into the field in 2006, however, with two major jobs.

•More work at the Seven Site. We’d like to clear and closely inspect the surface of the whole site, and carefully excavate some more fire areas. We’d like to do a subsurface survey of it using ground-penetrating radar, in case there’s a grave there. If the bones found on the surface in 1940 were Earhart’s, then Noonan’s remains must be somewhere. We want to plot the extent of the corrugated iron, and try to figure out what it’s there for.

•More work in the village. We’d like to look very closely at the part of the village where the four “dados” have been found. Whatever the things were, they must have been brought to the village in some related set of events. Imported from Kanton Island by a particular group of residents? Found on a wreck someplace? Floated ashore attached to a chunk of wooden floor? Maybe finding out more about the area where they were lying--what buildings stood there, what activities were going on--will help us figure them out. And of course, there may be more airplane parts there.

There are other things we’d like to do, like deep-water exploration of the reef face near where Emily Sikuli and Tapania Taiki reported wreckage, but that sort of work gets frightfully expensive. The reef drops off to abyssal depths, and it’s a long way--about seven miles--down into the abyss. That’s a lot of territory in which to look for small fragments of aluminum and a couple of radial aircraft engines.

There’s another reason, too, for concentrating our work on land. There’s pretty good evidence that we’re losing the island to rising sea levels. The inundation of the atolls of Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and other low island groups in the Pacific is something that the governments of the area are deeply worried about, and it’s happening all over, at varying rates and in various ways. On Nikumaroro, it’s not that big pieces of the island go underwater and stay there, but--so far--that storm-driven waves reach farther and farther in from the shore, tearing up the land and killing the vegetation. In the 16 years we’ve been going to the island we’ve seen a regular pattern of erosion along the southwest shore, where the big storms tend to come in. Unfortunately, the area of heaviest erosion borders the village. House sites we recorded in 1989--including one that contained one of our “dados,” which we fortunately collected--have disappeared entirely in the years since then. Nikumaroro probably isn’t going to vanish beneath the waves anytime very soon, but a piece of it containing critical evidence could go any time--and perhaps already has.

Meanwhile…

The Nikumaroro hypothesis isn’t the only one whose study can and does employ archaeological methods. In 2004, archaeologists in the Northern Mariana Islands tested one version of the Japanese Capture hypothesis--the Tinian Variant, it might be called. St. John Naftel, a U.S. Marine stationed on Tinian (home of the B-29s that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki) at the end of World War II, said he had been shown two graves on that island, said to be where the Japanese had executed and buried the aviators. Jennings Bunn, just retired from a position as the U.S. Navy’s archaeologist on Guam, organized a field project to examine the place where Mr. Naftel said he’d seen the graves. Feeling that any hypothesis deserves a test, Karen Burns and I volunteered to help out, as did a number of academic and contract archaeologists on Guam and in the Northern Marianas. We carefully hand-excavated the location Mr. Naftel pointed out, right down to bedrock, and found nothing. Excavation director Mike Fleming then brought in a big gradall and we stripped the surrounding acreage, with no results.

The Northern Marianas Historic Preservation Office is now planning archaeological excavations around the old Japanese jail in Garapan on Saipan, where some variants on the Japanese capture hypothesis say Earhart was incarcerated and perhaps executed. And the deep-ocean exploratory firm Nauticos continues to plan a search for Earhart’s Lockheed on the ocean bottom near Howland Island. What will come of these enterprises remains to be seen.

In TIGHAR’s view, the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains the only one worth spending much time and money on. Planning and fundraising are now underway for a major expedition to the island in 2006.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Guide to Pre-Clovis

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Guide to Pre-Clovis
Jan 26th 2012, 11:08

Pre-Clovis culture is a term used by archaeologists to refer to the founding populations of the Americas. The reason they are called pre-Clovis, rather than some more specific term, is that the culture remained controversial for some 20 years after their first discovery.

Up until the identification of pre-Clovis, the first absolutely agreed-upon culture in the Americas was a Paleoindian culture called Clovis, after the type site discovered in New Mexico in the 1920s. Sites identified as Clovis dated no more than ~11,200 years ago, and the sites reflected a fairly uniform living strategy, that of predation on now-extinct megafauna, including mammoths, mastodons, wild horse and bison.

There was always a small contingent of the Americanist scholars who supported claims of sites of ages dating between 15,000 to as much 100,000 years ago: but these were few, and the evidence was deeply flawed.

Winds of Change

However, beginning in the 1970s or so, sites predating Clovis began to be discovered in North America (such as Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Cactus Hill), and South America (Monte Verde). These sites, now called Pre-Clovis, were a few thousand years older than Clovis, and they seemed to identify a broader-range lifestyle, more approaching Archaic period hunter-gatherers. Evidence for any pre-Clovis sites remained widely discounted among mainstream archaeologists until about 1999, when a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico called Clovis and Beyond was held presenting some of the emerging evidence.

Pre-Clovis Lifestyles

Archaeological evidence from Pre-Clovis sites continues to grow. Much of what these sites indicate supports a broad-based combination of hunting, gathering and fishing. Evidence for the use of bone tools, and for the use of nets and fabrics has been discovered. Some sites seem to suggest that pre-Clovis people sometimes lived in clusters of huts. Much of the evidence seems to suggest a marine lifestyle, at least along the coastlines; although some sites within the interior show a partial reliance on megafauna.

Some of the research today centers on pathways into the Americas. Most archaeologists still favor the Bering Strait crossing from northeastern Asia: climatic events of that era restricted entry into Beringia and out of Beringia and into the North American continent. Certainly, the timing of the founding populations of North American can no longer fit the Ice-Free Corridor model.

PreClovis Sites

All of these sites have been characterized as having preclovis components, although some are more accepted than others.

Pre-Clovis Archaeological Sites

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the guide to Populating America, and the Dictionary of Archaeology.

A Preclovis/Clovis Bibliography has been assembled for this project. Also see specific references from each of the site descriptions for PreClovis sites is also available.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Archaeology: European Paleodogs and Domestication

Archaeology
Get the latest headlines from the Archaeology GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
European Paleodogs and Domestication
Jan 25th 2012, 10:12

A couple of articles published in the last month or so have continued the debate as to the earliest domestication of the dog.

Canid Skull from Razboinichya Cave, SiberiaImages of the canid from Razboinichya Cave, Altai Mountains, Siberia

The oldest dog-like characteristics on what some scholars are now calling "European Paleodogs" is still from Goyet Cave in Belgium, but the two new articles are supporting evidence that the transition from wolf to dog was in Europe or Eurasia about 35,000 years ago. Calling this "domestication" is problematic, which is after all what archaeology is all about anyway.

Germonpré M, Láznicková-Galetová M, and Sablin MV. 2012. Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Predmostí site, the Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(1):184-202.

Ovodov ND, Crockford SJ, Kuzmin YV, Higham TFG, Hodgins GWL, and van der Plicht J. 2011. A 33,000-Year-Old Incipient Dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the Earliest Domestication Disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22821. Open Access

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: Most Popular Articles: Terracotta Army

Archaeology: Most Popular Articles
These articles are the most popular over the last month. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Terracotta Army
Jan 25th 2012, 11:47

The exquisite terracotta army of the first Qin Dynasty ruler Shihuangdi represents the emperor’s ability to control the resources of the newly unified China, and his attempt to recreate and maintain that empire in the afterlife. The soldiers are part of Shihuangdi's tomb, located near the modern town of Xi'an, Shaanxi province in China.

The first emperor of all China was a fellow named Ying Zheng, born in 260 BC during the "Warring States Period", a chaotic, fierce, and dangerous time in Chinese history. He was a member of the Qin dynasty, and ascended to the throne in 247 BC at the age of twelve and a half. In 221 BC King Zheng united all of what is now China and renamed himself Qin Shihuangdi ("First Emperor of Qin"), although ‘united’ is rather a tranquil word to be using for the bloody conquest of the region’s small polities. According to the Shiji records of the Han dynasty court historian Sima Qian, Qin Shihuangdi was a phenomenal leader, who began connecting existing walls to create the first version of the Great Wall of China, constructed an extensive network of roads and canals throughout his empire, standardized written language and money, and abolished feudalism, establishing in its place provinces run by civilian governors. Qin Shihuangdi died in 210 BC, and the Qin dynasty was quickly extinguished within a few years by the early members of the Han dynasty. But, during the brief period of Shihuangdi’s rule, a remarkable testament to his control of the countryside and its resources was constructed: a semi-subterranean mausoleum complex and an army of 7,000 life-size sculpted clay terracotta soldiers, chariots, and horses.

Terracotta Army and Shihuangdi's Necropolis

Shihuangdi’s necropolis was surely large enough to merit the name of city of death. The outer wall of the mausoleum precinct measured 2100 x 975 meters and enclosed administrative buildings, horse stables and cemeteries; the heart of the precinct was the 500x500 meter tomb for Shihuangdi. Found in the precinct were ceramic and bronze sculptures, including cranes, horses, chariots, stone carved armor for humans and horses, and human sculptures that archaeologists have interpreted as representing officials and acrobats. The three pits containing the now-famous terracotta army are located 600 meters east of the mausoleum precinct, in a farm field where they were re-discovered by a well-digger in the 1920s.

The mausoleum precinct was built beginning shortly after Zheng became king, in 246 BC, and construction continued until about 209 BC. Four pits were excavated to hold the terracotta army, although only three were filled by the time construction ceased. The construction of the pits included excavation, placement of a brick floor, and construction of a sequence of rammed earth partitions and tunnels. The floors of the tunnels were covered with mats, the life-sized statuary was placed erect on the mats and the tunnels were covered with logs. Finally each pit was buried. In the largest pit (14,000 square meters), the infantry was placed in rows four deep. Pit 2 includes a U-shaped layout of chariots, cavalry and infantry; and Pit 3 contains a command headquarters. Only about 1,000 soldiers have been excavated so far; archaeologists estimate that there are over 7,000 soldiers (infantry to generals), 130 chariots with horses, and 110 cavalry horses.

The statues of the infantry soldiers range between 5 foot 8 inches and 6 foot 2 inches; the commanders are 6 and half feet tall. The lower half of the kiln-fired ceramic bodies were made of solid terracotta clay, the upper half hollow. It is evident that the statues were vividly painted including a color called Chinese purple; although most of that paint has flown, traces of it may be seen on some of the statues.

Chinese excavations have been conducted at Shihuangdi’s mausoleum complex since 1974, and have included excavations in and around the mausoleum complex; they continue to reveal astonishing findings. As Xiaoneng Yang describes Shihuangdi’s mausoleum complex, “Ample evidence demonstrates the First Emperor’s ambition: not only to control all aspects of the empire during his lifetime but to recreate the entire empire in microcosm for his after life.”

Sources

Hu, Ya-Qin, et al. 2007 What can pollen grains from the Terracotta Army tell us? Journal of Archaeological Science 341153-1157.

Liu, Z., et al. 2007 Influence of Taoism on the invention of the purple pigment used on the Qin terracotta warriors. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(11):1878-1883.

Xiaoneng Yang. 2004. “Mausoleum of the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty and its Terracotta Army Pits at Lishan and Xiyang, Lintong, Shaanxi Province.” In Chinese Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: New Perspectives on China's Past, Volume 2, pp 225-229. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

More on the Terracotta Army

See the terracotta army photo essay.

Pollen and the Terracotta Army describes how pollen has helped identify where the various terracotta sculptures were made.

Chinese purple is a manufactured pigment used on the soldiers.

Stan Parchin, Senior Museum Correspondent for Art History, reports that replicas of the terracotta soldiers currently reside in the public lobby of an office building on Fifth Avenue and East 53rd Street in Manhattan. England just executed a cultural agreement with China, and some of the terracotta figures will be featured soon as part of a special exhibition in London.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Jan 25th 2012, 11:08

The Pre-Pottery Neolithic (abbreviated PPN) is the name given to the people who domesticated the earliest plants and lived in farming communities in the Levant and Near East. The PPN culture contained most of the attributes we think of Neolithic--except pottery, which was not used in the Levant until ca. 5500 BC.

The designations PPNA and PPNB (for Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and so forth) were first developed by Kathleen Kenyon to use at the complex excavations at Jericho, which is probably the best known PPN site. PPNC, referring to the terminal Early Neolithic was first identified at 'Ain Ghazal by Gary O. Rollefson.

Pre-Pottery Neolithic Chronology

Crops of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Crops domesticated during the PPN include the founder crops: the cereals (einkorn and emmer wheat and barley), the pulses (lentil, pea, bitter vetch, and chickpea), and a fiber crop (flax). Domesticated forms of these crops have been excavated at sites such as Abu Hureyra, Cafer Hüyük, Cayönü and Nevali Çori.

In addition, the sites of Gilgal and Netiv Hagdud have produced some evidence supporting the domestication of fig trees during the PPNA. Animals domesticated during the PPNB include sheep, goats, and possible cattle.

PPN Rituals

Ritual behavior during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic is quite remarkable, indicated by the presence of large human figurines at sites such as 'Ain Ghazal, and plastered skulls at 'Ain Ghazal, Jericho, Beisomoun and Kfar HaHoresh. A plastered skull was made by modeling a plaster replica of skin and features onto a human skull. In some cases cowry shells were used for eyes, and sometimes they were painted using cinnabar or other iron-rich element.

Sources

This Guide to Prehistory is part of the Guide to the Neolithic and the Guide to European Prehistory.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, Daniella E. 1997 Neolithic shell bead production in Sinai. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:97-111.

Byrd, Brian F. 1994 Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of the southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 59(4):639-666.

Goren, Yuval, A. N. Goring-Morris, and Irena Segal 2001 The technology of skull modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB): Regional variability, the relation of technology and iconography and their archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:671-690.

Haber, Annat and Tamar Dayan 2004 Analyzing the process of domestication: Hagoshrim as a case study. Journal of Archaeological Science 311:587-1601. Free download

Hardy-Smith, Tania and Phillip C. Edwards 2004 The Garbage Crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(3):253-289.

Kuijt, Ian 2000 People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19(1):75-102.

Pinhasi, Ron and Mark Pluciennik 2004 A Regional Biological Approach to the Spread of Farming in Europe: Anatolia, the Levant, South-Eastern Europe, and the Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45(S4):S59-S82.

Simcha Lev-Yadun, Avi Gopher, and Shahal Abbo. The cradle of agriculture. Science 288(5471):1602-1603.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Quipu (Khipu, Quipo)

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Quipu (Khipu, Quipo)
Jan 25th 2012, 11:08

Quipu (also spelled khipu or quipo) is the only known precolumbian writing system in South Americaâ€"well, perhaps writing system isn't quite the correct phrase. But quipus were clearly an information transmittal system. A quipu is essentially a group of wool and cotton strings tied together. The strings are dyed in many different colors, and they are joined together in many different manners and they have a wide variety and number of knots tied in them. Together the type of wool, the colors, the knots and the joins hold information that was once readable by several South American societies.

Quipus were a tool used by the Inca empire to communicate some kinds of information throughout the Inca Empire. When they arrived in 1532, the Spanish conquistadors viewed the quipu with great suspicion. Thousands of quipus were destroyed in the 16th century. Today there are only roughly 300 quipus which were preserved or have been discovered since that time.

Quipu Meanings

Quipus have not yet been deciphered, but some educated guesses about what they represent have been attempted. Certainly they were used for administrative tracking of tributes. They may have represented maps of the ceque system and/or they may have been mnemonic devices to help oral historians remember ancient legends. They may even have those legends encoded in them; but the likelihood that we'll ever translate them is very small.

Quipus predate the Inca, and are known from the Chimú state. They may have been used by the Moche and Tiwanaku civilizations, although quipu from those societies have not as yet been discovered. The oldest known quipu was discovered at Caral, and dates to about 4600 years ago.

More on the Quipu

Simon Fraser University has a cool make-your-own quipu site.

Sources

This glossary entry is part of the Guide to the Inca Empire, and the Dictionary of Archaeology. Any mistakes are the responsibility of Kris Hirst.

Beynon-Davies, Paul 2007 Informatics and the Inca. International Journal of Information Management 27 306â€"318.

Fossa, Lydia 2000 Two khipu, one narrrative: Answering Urton's question. Ethnohistory 47(2):453-468.

Niles, Susan A. 2007 Considering quipus: Andean knotted string records in analytical context. Reviews in Anthropology 36(1):85-102.

Topic, John R. 2003 From Stewards to Bureaucrats: Architecture and Information Flow at Chan Chan, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 14(3):243-274.

Quilter, Jeffrey and Gary Urgon. 2002. Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu. University of Texas Press: Austin.

Urton, Gary and Carrie J. Brezine 2005 Khipu Accounting in Ancient Peru. Science 309:1065-1067.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions