Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Molodova I (Ukraine)

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Molodova I (Ukraine)
Feb 29th 2012, 11:08

Definition:

The Middle and Upper Paleolithic site of Molodova (sometimes spelled Molodovo) is located on the Dniester River in the Chernovtsy (or Chernivtsi) province of Ukraine, between the Dniester river and the Carpathian mountains.

Molodova I has five Middle Paleolithic Mousterian occupations (called Molodova 1-5), three Upper Paleolithic occupations and one Mesolithic occupation. The Mousterian components are dated to >44,000 RCYBP, based on charcoal radiocarbon from a hearth. Microfauna and palynological data connect the layer 4 occupations with Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 (ca 60,000-24,000 years ago).

Archaeologists believe that the stone tool strategies appear to be either Levallois or transitional to Levallois, including points, simple side scrapers and retouched blades, all of which argues that Molodova I was occupied by Neanderthals using a Mousterian tradition tool kit.

Artifacts and Features at Molodova I

Artifacts from the Mousterian levels at Molodova include 40,000 flint artifacts, including over 7,000 stone tools. The tools are characteristic of typical Mousterian, but lack bifacial forms. They are blades with marginal retouch, retouched side-scrapers and retouched Levallois flakes. Most of the flint is local, from the Dniester river terrace.

Twenty-six hearths were identified at Molodova I, varying in diameter from 40x30 centimeters (16x12 inches) to 100x40 cm (40x16 in), with ashy lenses varying from 1-2 cm thick. Stone tools and burned bone fragments were recovered from these hearths. Approximately 2,500 mammoth bones and bone fragments have been recovered from Molodova I layer 4 alone.

Living at Molodova

The Middle Paleolithic level 4 covers 1,200 square meters (about 13,000 square feet) and includes five areas, including a pit filled with bones, an area with engraved bones, two concentrations of bones and tools, and a circular accumulation of bones with tools in its center.

Recent studies (Demay in press) have focused on this last feature which was originally characterized as a mammoth bone hut. However, recent re-investigations of mammoth bone settlements in central Europe have confined the use dates to between 14,000-15,000 years ago: if this was a mammoth bone settlement (MBS), it is older by some 30,000 years than the majority of the others: Molodova currently represents the only Middle Paleolithic MBS discovered to date.

Because of the discrepancy in dates, scholars have interpreted the ring of bones as either a hunting blind, a natural accumulation, a circular symbolic ring bound to Neanderthal beliefs, a wind break for a long term occupation, or the result of humans returning to the area and pushing away the bones from the living surface. Demay and colleagues argue that the structure was purposefully built as protection from cold climate in an open environment and, along with the pit features, that makes Molodova an MBS.

The ring of bones measured 5x8 meters (16x26 feet) inside and 7x10 m (23x33 ft) externally. The structure included 116 complete mammoth bones, including 12 skulls, five mandibles, 14 tusks, 34 pelves and 51 long bones. The bones represent at least 15 individual mammoths, and included both male and female, both adults and juveniles. Most of the bones appear to have been intentionally selected and assembled by Neanderthals to build a circular structure.

A large pit located 9 m (30 ft) from the circular structure contained the majority of non-mammoth bones from the site. But, most importantly, mammoth bones from the pit and dwelling structure have been linked as coming from the same individuals. The bones in the pit show cut marks from butchering activities.

Molodova and Archaeology

Molodova I was discovered in 1928, and first excavated by I.G. Botez and N. N. Morosan between 1931 and 1932. A.P. Chernysch continued excavations between 1950 and 1961, and again in the 1980s. Detailed site information in English has only recently become available.

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the guide to Middle Paleolithic, and the Dictionary of Archaeology.

Demay L, Péan S, and Patou-Mathis M. in press. Mammoths used as food and building resources by Neanderthals: Zooarchaeological study applied to layer 4, Molodova I (Ukraine). Quaternary International(0).

Meignen, L., J.-M. Genest, L. Koulakovsaia, and A. Sytnik. 2004. Koulichivka and its place in the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in eastern Europe. Chapter 4 in The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe, P.J. Brantingham, S.L. Kuhn, and K. W. Kerry, eds. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Vishnyatsky, L.B. and P.E. Nehoroshev. 2004. The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic on the Russian Plain. Chapter 6 in The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe, P.J. Brantingham, S.L. Kuhn, and K. W. Kerry, eds. University of California Press, Berkeley.

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: Mammoth Bone Dwellings

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Mammoth Bone Dwellings
Feb 29th 2012, 11:08

Definition:

Mammoth bone dwellings are a very early type of housing constructed by Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherers in central Europe during the Late Pleistocene. A mammoth (Mammuthus primogenus, and also known as Woolly Mammoth) was a type of enormous ancient now-extinct elephant, a hairy large-tusked mammal that stood ten feet tall as an adult. Mammoths roamed most of the world, including the continents of Europe and North America, until they died out at the end of the Pleistocene. During the late Pleistocene, mammoths provided meat and skin for human hunter-gatherers, and, in some cases during the Upper Paleolithic of central Europe, as building materials for houses.

A mammoth bone dwelling is typically a circular or oval structure with walls made of stacked large mammoth bones, often modified to allow them to be lashed together or implanted into the soil. Within the interior is typically found a central hearth or several scattered hearths. The hut is generally surrounded by numerous large pits, full of mammoth and other animal bones. Ashy concentrations with flint artifacts appear to represent middens; many of the mammoth bone settlements have a preponderance of ivory and bone tools. External hearths, butchering areas and flint workshops are often found in association with the hut: scholars call these combinations Mammoth Bone Settlements (MBS).

Dating mammoth bone dwellings has been problematic. The earliest dates were between 20,000 and 14,000 years ago, but most of these have been redated to between 14,000-15,000 years ago. However, the oldest known MBS is from the Molodova site, a Neanderthal Mousterian occupation located on the Dniester River of Ukraine, and dated some 30,000 years earlier than most of the known Mammoth Bone Settlements.

Settlement Patterns

In the Dnepr river region of the Ukraine, numerous mammoth bone settlements have been found and recently redated to the epi-Gravettian between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago. These mammoth bone huts are typically located on old river terraces, above and within a ravine trending down to a slope overlooking the river. This type of location is believed to have been a strategic one, as it is placed in the path or near the pathway of what would have been migrating animal herds between the steppe plain and the riverside.

Some mammoth bone dwellings are isolated structures; others have up to six dwellings, although they may not have been occupied at the same time. Evidence for contemporaneity of dwelling has been identified by refits of tools: for example, at Mezhirich in Ukraine, it appears that at least three dwellings were occupied at the same time.

Mammoth Bone Hut Dates

Mammoth bone dwellings are not the only or first type of house: Upper Paleolithic open air houses are found as pitlike depressions excavated into the subsoil or based with stone rings or postholes, like that seen at Pushkari or Kostenki. Some UP houses are partly built of bone and partly of stone and wood, such as Grotte du Reine, France.

Mammoth bone hut dwelling sites: Seminivka, Dobranivichki, Mezhirich, Ioudinovo, Gontsy, Ginsy, Elisseevichi, Molodova, Timonovka (all in Ukraine)

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the guide to Upper Paleolithic, the guide to Ancient Houses and the Dictionary of Archaeology.

Iakovleva L, and Djindjian F. 2005. New data on Mammoth bone settlements of Eastern Europe in the light of the new excavations of the Gontsy site (Ukraine). Quaternary International 126â€"128:195-207.

Iakovleva L, Djindjian F, Maschenko EN, Konik S, and Moigne AM. in press. The late Upper Palaeolithic site of Gontsy (Ukraine): A reference for the reconstruction of the hunterâ€"gatherer system based on a mammoth economy. Quaternary International(0).

Iakovleva LA, and Djindjian F. 2001. New data on mammoth bone dwellings of Eastern Europe in the light of the new excavations of the Ginsy site (Ukraine). Paper given at the World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome 2001

Marquer L, Lebreton V, Otto T, Valladas H, Haesaerts P, Messager E, Nuzhnyi D, and Péan S. 2012. Charcoal scarcity in Epigravettian settlements with mammoth bone dwellings: the taphonomic evidence from Mezhyrich (Ukraine). Journal of Archaeological Science 39(1):109-120.

Svoboda J, Péan S, and Wojtal P. 2005. Mammoth bone deposits and subsistence practices during Mid-Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe: three cases from Moravia and Poland. Quaternary International 126â€"128:209-221.

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Tlaloc, the Aztec Rain God

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Tlaloc, the Aztec Rain God
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

Tlaloc (Tlá-loch) was the Aztec rain god and one of the most ancient and widespread deities of all Mesoamerica. Tlaloc was thought to live on the top of the mountains, especially the ones always covered by clouds; and from there he sent the vivifying rains. The rain god was a pan-Mesoamerican god, whose origins can be traced back to Teotihuacan and the Olmec. The rain god was called Chaac by the ancient Maya and Cocijo by the Zapotec of Oaxaca.

Tlaloc's Characteristics

The rain god was the most important among the Aztec deities, governing the spheres of water, fertility and agriculture. Tlaloc oversaw the crop growth, especially maize, and the regular cycle of the seasons. Archaeologists and historians suggest that the emphasis on this well-known god was a way for the Aztec to legitimize their rule over the region. For this reason they built one of the two most important shrines within their capital, on the top of the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, just next to the one dedicated to Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec patron deity.

The shrine of Tlaloc was painted blue and had pillars with Tlaloc's eyes and series of blue bands painted on them. Many offerings have been found associated with this shrine, containing animals related to water environment and artifacts, such as jade objects, related to water, sea, fertility, and the underworld.

Tlaloc was helped in his job by other supernatural beings called Tlaloques who were his assistants in supplying the earth with rain.

In Aztec mythology, Tlaloc was also the governor of the Third Sun, or world, which was dominated by water. After a heavy rain, the Third Sun ended, and people were replaced by animals such as dogs, butterflies and turkeys.

Tlaloc's Paradise

In Aztec religion, Taloc governed the fourth heaven or sky, called Tlalocan, the "Place of Tlaloc". This place is described in Aztec sources as a paradise of lush vegetation and perennial spring, ruled by the god and his assistants, the Tlaloques. The Tlalocan was the afterlife destination for those who died violently for water-related causes as well as for new-born children and women who died in childbirth.

Tlaloc's Ceremonies

The most important ceremonies dedicated to Tlaloc took place at the end of the dry season, in March and April, and were called Tozoztontli. Their purpose was to assure abundant rain during the growing season.

One of the most common rites carried out during such ceremonies were sacrifices of children, whose crying was considered beneficial for obtaining rain, since the tears of new-born children, being strictly connected with the Tlalocan, were pure and precious.

Apart from the ceremonies carried out at the Templo Mayor, offerings to Tlaloc have been found in several caves and on mountain peaks. The most sacred shrine of Tlaloc was on the top of Mount Tlaloc, an extinct volcano, located east of Mexico City. Research on the top of the mountain has identified remains of an Aztec temple which seems aligned with the Tlaloc shrine of the Templo Mayor. This shrine is enclosed in a precinct where pilgrimage and offerings by the Aztec king and priests where carried out once a year.

Tlaloc Images

The image of Tlaloc is one of the most represented and easily recognizable in Aztec mythology and is similar in other Mesoamerican cultures. He has large goggled eyes whose contours are two serpents which meet at the centre of his face to form his nose. He also has large fangs hanging from his mouth and a protuberant upper lip. He is often surrounded by rain drops and by his assistants, the Tlaloques.

He often holds a long sceptre in his hand with a sharp tip which represented lightens and thunders. His representations are frequent on codices, murals, sculptures, and censer burners.

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the guide to Aztec Gods, and the Dictionary of Archaeology.

Millar, Mary, and Karl Taube, 1993, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: An Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion. London, Thames and Hudson

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

Van Tuerenhout Dirk R., 2005, The Aztecs. New Perspectives, ABC-CLIO Inc. Santa Barbara, CA; Denver, CO and Oxford, England.

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: Peer Review

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Peer Review
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

Peer review, at least in intent, is the way the editors of academic journals attempt to keep the quality of articles in their publications high, and assure that poor or fallacious research does not get published. The process is tied up with political and economic issues involving tenure and pay scales, in that an academic who participates in the peer review process (whether as author, editor, or reviewer) gets rewarded for that participation in an increase in reputation which can lead to an increase in pay scales, rather than direct payment for services rendered.

In other words, none of the people involved in the review process is paid by the journal in question, with the sole exception (maybe) of one or more editorial assistants. The author, editor, and reviewers all do this for the prestige involved in the process; they are generally paid by the university or business that employs them, and in many cases, that pay is contingent upon obtaining publication in peer-reviewed journals. The editorial assistance is generally provided in part by the editor's university and in part by the journal.

The Review Process

The way academic peer review works (at least in the social sciences), is that a scholar writes an article and submits it to a journal for review. The editor reads it over and finds between three and seven other scholars to review it.

The reviewers selected to read and comment on the scholar's article are chosen by the editor based on their reputations in the specific field of the article, or whether they are mentioned in the bibliography, or if they are personally known to the editor. Sometimes the author of a manuscript suggests some reviewers. Once a list of reviewers is drawn up, the editor removes the name of the author from the manuscript and forwards a copy to the chosen stout hearts. Then time passes, a lot of time, generally, between two weeks and several months.

When the reviewers have all returned their comments (made directly on the manuscript or in a separate document), the editor makes a preliminary decision about the manuscript. Is it to be accepted as is? (This is very rare.) Is it to be accepted with modifications? (This is typical.) Is it to be rejected? (This last cases is also fairly rare, depending on the journal.) The editor strips out the identity of the reviewers and sends along the comments and her preliminary decision about the manuscript to the author.

If the manuscript was accepted with modifications, it is then up to the author to make changes until the editor is satisfied that the reviewers' reservations are met. Eventually, after several rounds of back and forth, the manuscript is published. The period from submission of a manuscript to publication in an academic journal generally takes anywhere from six months to over a year.

Problems with Peer Review

Problems inherent in the system include the time sink between submission and publication, and the difficulty obtaining reviewers who have the time and inclination to give thoughtful, constructive reviews. Petty jealousies and full blown political differences of opinion are difficult to restrain in a process where no one is made accountable for a specific set of comments on a particular manuscript, and where the author has no ability to correspond directly with her reviewers. However, it must be said that many argue that the anonymity of the blind review process allows a reviewer to freely state what he or she believes about a particular paper without fear of reprisal.

Recent Findings

The journal Behavioral Ecology changed its peer review system from one which identified the author to reviewers (but reviewers remained anonymous) to a completely blind one, in which both author and reviewers are anonymous to one another. In a forthcoming paper, Amber Budden and colleagues report that statistics comparing the articles accepted for publication before and after the watershed year (2001) indicated that significantly more women have been published in BE since the double-blind process began. Similar ecological journals using single-blind reviews over the same period do not indicate a similar growth in the number of woman-authored articles, leading researchers to believe that the process of double-blind review might assist with the 'glass ceiling' effect.

Source

Most of this paper comes from personal experience. See my c.v. for specifics if you're interested.

Budden, Amber E., et al. in press Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution

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: History of Archaeology 2

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
History of Archaeology 2
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

The Enlightenment of 18th century Europe had a profound effect on people interested in nature and philosophy, leading to the creation of the first sciences including the study of archaeology.

History of Archaeology

The first tentative step forward towards archaeology as a science took place during the Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason. Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries was a time of great growth in scientific and natural exploration. Scientists, poets, philosophers, and painters reached into classical antiquity, particularly Greece, to wonder how rationalism, what they considered the supreme human reason, ever came to be realized. Human society everywhere must develop linearly, it was felt, beginning with stone tools, growing with the invention of agriculture, and ending with the pinnacle of human culture--European scientific society (at least according to European scientific society).

The only systematic archaeological investigation during the Enlightenment project was Thomas Jefferson's excavations in Virginia in 1784; most antiquarians were content to theorize. The Enlightenment ended with the American and French Revolutions, but the main concept of the Enlightenment--that of the "Great Chain" of human cultural evolution--was to lead men (rich European men) to investigate the globe over the next century.

A "Natural" Sovereignty

Unfortunately, the concept of equality, that all societies were the same, just at different levels of evolution, was dropped. Instead, a classificatory system was developed, producing both studies of the individual histories of various societies, and a fierce underlying chauvinism in the scientists themselves of the "natural" sovereignty of the European peoples.

One of those lit by the fires of the Enlightenment was Jacques Boucher de Perthes, a French customs officer. During the 1830s-1850s, he discovered a mess of extinct animal bones, numerous handaxes, and other artifacts in Ice Age deposits at the site of Abbeville along the Somme River in France, and had the nerve to call them "Ante-Diluvian" (that is, "before the flood"). To make any kind of claim questioning the purely factual basis of the Bible was, well, heresy. In 1847, de Perthes published a long rambling account of these artifacts, arguing that they were clear evidence that humanity was clearly older than 6,000 years. He was widely ignored until 12 years later when two British archaeologists visited Abbeville, found elephant bones in situ with stone axes, and published a treatise supporting de Perthe's assertions of the antiquity of humans.

Schliemann, Botta and Layard

Better known to the general public, partly because of Irving Stone, and partly because of rudiments of his own sense of PT Barnum, is Heinrich Schliemann, a German whose insatiable search for the Troy of the Odyssey and the Iliad led him to Turkey to the site of Hisarlik. Schliemann spent four years in the early 1870s digging through nine levels of occupation at Hisarlik, interestingly enough excavating right through the classic period Hellenic occupation without recognizing it in the process.

Other early scientists who excavated for answers to questions, not necessarily gold artifacts, included Paul Emile Botta, an Italian who excavated the Palace of Sargon II of Assyria in the 1840s, under the mistaken impression that he had found the biblical site of Nineveh.

A few years later, Austen Henry Layard, an Englishman fired up by Botta's research, went searching and actually did find Nineveh.

The Three Age System

Christian J. Thomsen and Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae, succeeding curators of the National Museum of Denmark argued against the prevailing theory that in prehistoric times, iron tools were for poor people and bronze for rich, and in the 1840s looked for and provided the evidence for the Three Age System (Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages) throughout Europe.

The modern science of archaeology still grapples with three issues believed by European antiquarians in the century after the Enlightenment. First, they firmly believed that all white, propertied men were equal--but nobody else. Secondly, they believed European scientific society was the pinnacle of human endeavor, and that any society not there yet was inferior in some way. Thirdly, due to their efforts, much of the artifacts they found are in European museums, far from their countries of origin. It is only relatively recently that archaeology has begun to let go of these tenets, and, to some extent, returned to the original notions of equality of the Enlightenment itself.

Sources

A bibliography of the history of archaeology has been assembled for this project.

History 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

Archaeology: What's Hot Now: Viewer's Guide to Archaeology

Archaeology: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Viewer's Guide to Archaeology
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

The National Geographic Society is one of the oldest continuously publishing journals in the world. Founded in 1888, the society has as its main goals "exploration, research, and scientific discoveries.' They are best known among baby boomers for the yellow-bound journals that were stacked in every lucky kid's room, or at least in every American school's library.

Today, of course, they are best known for a series of videos bringing the workings of science to the general public. During November 2008's Expedition Week, National Geographic will air nine new videos produced this year, eight of which are on archaeological topics. This photo essay provides a review of each of those videos, along with links for further information.

Three of the new videos are set at least partially in Egypt, so it seems fitting to use this wonderful photograph of the Pyramids of Giza as a starting point.

If none of the videos described here trips your trigger, National Geographic's Expedition Week includes over twenty separate documentaries, including three videos on King Tutankhamun, and single episodes on the Titanic, Stonehenge, the Whydah, Neanderthal DNA, the Romanovs, the Cosmic Impact theory, the Mars Rover, the search for Amelia Earhart, the Naica Cave, dinosaurs, and the Scorpion King. Check local listings.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012

Archaeology: Steppe Societies - Revisiting the Andronovo Culture

Archaeology
Get the latest headlines from the Archaeology GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Steppe Societies - Revisiting the Andronovo Culture
Feb 27th 2012, 08:44

The Late Bronze Age (~3200-1200 BC) horse-back riding cultures of Asia, sometimes called Andronovo culture, have always been an interest to me. But I admit, I haven't written much to date. The problem has been the scarcity of data to be gathered from such a huge, huge area: a lot of it isn't in English. Previous syntheses pulled together what disparate data there was from a dozen different countries, but frankly, as a non-specialist, I've found it hard to get a reasonable handle on it.

Steppes Region of Central Asia
Steppes Region of Central Asia. CIA World Factbook

In a new article in Current Anthropology this month, Michael Frachetti provides a new synthesis of the recently gathered data across the broad region of Asia, and argues that the mobile pastoralists arose from three separate trajectories, rather than just one big "Andronovo culture" block out of the Black Sea. He built his new set of theories on recent research, and emphasizes the variations in the region, rather than the similarities: my impression, bolstered by that of the people who commented on the article, is that this new set of theories both riles up long-standing paradigms and excites new ideas.

In his article, Frachetti uses an "Inner Asian Mountain Corridor" as a proposed route through which central Asia connected to the Eurasian steppes--one of his commenters suggests another. The commentaries provided by eminent scholars from the different countries, and their presence next to the article, exemplifies why Current Anthropology is among my favorite journals. The study has lit my fires to probe a bit deeper, and perhaps it will light yours as well.

Frachetti MD. 2012. Multiregional emergence of mobile pastoralism and nonuniform institutional complexity across Eurasia. Current Anthropology 53(1):2-38. With comments by David W. Anthony, A.V. Epimakhov, Bryan K. Hanks and R.C.P. Doonan, Nicolay N. Kradin, C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Sandra L. Olsen, D.T. Potts, J. Daniel Rogers, and Natalia Shishlina.

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