Anth 106 PPT Lecture 3 Summary of and Su

Introduction to Archaeology: Spring 2023
Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.2

Lecture 3: What is left?
The variety of the evidence.
© Notes and images compiled by Gregory Mumford (2023)
Contents:
C. What is left? The variety of the evidence. 4
1. Introduction: 5
Material culture debris’ variety 10
2. Basic categories of archaeological evidence 15
Importance of context 20
3. Formation processes 29
4. Peoples’ affect on archaeological record 41
5. Nature’s affect on archaeological record 47
6. Organic materials 50
Extreme conditions 53
Wet environments 63
7. Summary 76
D. Case Study: ARTIFACTS and CONTEXT ... 78

Anthropological archaeology …
Instructor tips for lectures, etc.:
(1). Attend class regularly (& listen) …
→ Many clarifications, tips, announcements,
reinforcement & reviews of materials/concepts.
(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …

→ The act of writing down notes, even with
most course materials and instructions online,
serves as an invaluable aid to one focusing on
a class topic and retaining information better.
https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/
(3). Complete the required textbook
readings, and/or review the ppt.,
prior to the specific class day …
→ This will provide greater clarity and
comprehension of the material, and will enable
asking focused questions where something
may be less clear (in the textbook or lecture).
(4). Ask questions during the class if

you are confused/wish more data
→ The class is an ideal place to ask for more
clarity or further information not contained in
the textbook, ppt., and/or lecture (If nobody
asks questions, the lecture proceeds …).
(5). Complete optional materials:

→ Additional reinforcement, studying & bonus?
Renfrew and Bahn
2019 (8th. Ed.)
Chapter 2:
What is left?
The Variety of the evidence.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.2
2. What is Left? The Variety of the Evidence.
1.1. Introduction:
Broad range of past human
activity survives:
a. Grand scale:
- Egyptian pyramids
- Great Wall of China
- Mesoamerican temples
- Mayan irrigation channels
b. Smaller scale:
- Mostly past “garbage”
- Food remains
- Potsherds
- Broken stone tools
- Etc.
1610 AD
1.1. Introduction:
activity survives:
a. Grand scale:
- Egyptian pyramids
b. Smaller scale:
- Food remains
- Potsherds
- Etc.
Great Wall = visible from space

1.1. Introduction: Tikal
activity survives:
a. Grand scale:
- Egyptian pyramids
b. Smaller scale:
- Food remains
- Potsherds
- Etc.
1.1. Introduction:
activity survives:
a. Grand scale:
- Egyptian pyramids
Not obvious on the surface,
b. Smaller
but scale: & detected
= large-scale
by LiDAR and other surveys
- Food remains
- Potsherds
- Etc.
1.1. Introduction:
activity survives:
a. Grand scale:
- Egyptian pyramids
b. Smaller scale:
- Food remains
- Potsherds
- Etc.
1.2. Material culture debris
survives in many ways:
1. Cold sites:
Sub-zero temperatures (C)
For
E.g., example … mat.
Pazyryk: organic
2. Dry sites:
Arid environments
•E.g.,
ColdPeru:sites
organic mat.
3. Wet sites:
Water logged (no oxygen)
•E.g.,
Dry sitesswamps: org.
Florida
4. Natural disasters:
•E.g.,
Volcanic eruptions (pumice)
Wet sitesetc.
Pompeii,
Mudslides (sealed deposits)
•E.g., Canada:disasters
Natural Hope slide.
→ Need to know processes of
preservation & what = lost
→ design optimum Q and A
1. Cold sites:
E.g., Pazyryk: organic mat.
2. Dry sites:
Arid environments
E.g., Peru: organic mat.
3. Wet sites:
E.g., Florida swamps: org.
Thesedisasters:
4. Natural conditions
enableeruptions
Volcanic exceptional
(pumice)
E.g., Pompeii, etc.
preservation
of organic
E.g., Canada: Hope slide.
materials
→ Need to know …
processes of
1. Cold sites:
Exceptional
E.g.,preservation
Pazyryk: organic mat.
2. Dryof organic
sites:
materials …
Arid environments
3. Wet sites:
Water logged (= no oxygen)
E.g., Pompeii, etc.
1.2. Material culture debris - Knowing one is seeking
survives in many ways: hollows from bodies …
1. Cold sites:
Varying
E.g., - excellent
Pazyryk: organic mat.
2. Dry sites:
preservation
Arid environments
of organic
materials
3. Wet sites: …
E.g., Pompeii, etc.
Pompeii: reconstruction. Plaster cast from hollow.
• Now using fiberglass compound
E.g., Fore-knowledge to enable

casting bodies within hollows
2.1. Basic Categories of
archaeological evidence:
1. Artifacts:
2. Non-artifactual remains (ecofacts):
3. Anc. sites (landscapes & regions)
Defined by some as “artifacts”
1. Artifacts:
- Var. def.: human-altered items/features?
- Or: items produced, altered, or used
by people (“small finds”).
- Usually: human-made/altered portable
items: stone tools, pottery containers,
How do archaeologists
metal implements, etc.
define “an artifact”?

- May apply many layers of analysis to
an artifact: For example pottery …
a. Date of production
b. Source (local / regional / foreign)
What is “an artifact”?
c.Form (stylistic diff. before/after
d. Function (storage/eating/ritual/etc.)
e. Contents (res. →diet); Dec. (typology)
2.1. Basic Categories of
archaeological evidence:
1. Artifacts:
2. Non-artifactual remains (ecofacts):
3. Anc. sites (landscapes & regions)
Defined by some as “artifacts”
1. Artifacts:
- Var. def.: human-altered items/features?
- Or: items produced, altered, or used
by people (“small finds”).
- Usually: human-made/altered/used
portable items: e.g., stone tools, pottery
containers, metal implements, stone, etc.
- May apply many layers of analysis to
an artifact: For example pottery …
a. Date of production
b. Source (local / regional / foreign)
c. Form (stylistic diff. before/after See
d. Function (storage/eating/ritual/etc.) case
e. Contents (res. →diet); Dec. (typology) study …
2. Non-artifactual remains
(ecofacts):
- organic & environmental
debris
- Osteological remains
(animals; humans)
- Plant debris
- Soils & sediments
- Diet & environmental
conditions
3. Archaeological Sites:
What about
- The contexts within we
non-artifactual
find artifacts, features,
structures, etc.
remains related
- Scatter of pottery
- Scatter of stone tools
to (past) human
- Isolated artifacts
“Ecofacts”
- Isolated monument
activity?
(village/town/house)
Broader contexts:
(ecofacts):
i.e., the var. settings
debris
- Osteological remains
in which we find
(animals; humans)
artifacts, ecofacts,
- Plant debris
- Soils & sediments
features, structures
conditions
structures, etc.
- Isolated monument
(ecofacts):
Broader contexts:
i.e.,debris
the var. settings
-in
Osteological
which we remains
find
(animals; humans)
artifacts, ecofacts,
- Plant debris
features, structures
- Soils & sediments Lost / discarded
conditions
structures, etc.
- Isolated monument
2.1. Importance of context: Micro-setting: assemblage
- All artifacts/features need to be
placed in context (i.e., their matrix)
- Matrix: = material assoc. directly with
an item (> sediment: gravel, sand, clay).
- Provenience: = location vertically &
The immediate
horizontally context
in the matrix and the
association with other finds.
of a given artifact or
- Every item removed from its matrix →
ecofact
bias = its(looting;
in interpretation MATRIX preserv.)
- All components = crucial to reconstruct
past lifeways (evidence = biased)
(which may vary widely
- Primary context: = initial material within
In an
which nature,
artifact is scope, …) fill
deposited: grave
- Secondary context: = disturbance of
material in which an artifact is found.
Micro-setting: assemblage
- Agents of destruction: human & natural
2.1. Importance of context:
Broadening
placed in context (i.e.,contexts
their matrix) …
The immediate
in the matrix and the Local site context
ecofact
bias = its(looting;
In an
which nature,
deposited: grave
E.g., Local site context
Broadening
their matrix) …
The immediate
ecofact
bias = its(looting;
past lifeways (evidence = biased) Hinterland
(which may vary widely context …
In an
which nature,
deposited: grave
Hinterland context …
Broadening
their matrix) …
The immediate
- Every item removed from its matrix → Micro-regional
ecofact
bias = its(looting;
context
In an
which nature,
deposited: grave
Micro-regional context
Broadening
their matrix) …
The immediate
of a given artifact or Macro-regional
ecofact
bias = its(looting;
context
In an
which nature,
deposited: grave
Macro-regional context
Broadening
their matrix) …
The immediate
ecofact
bias = its(looting;
In an
which nature,
deposited: grave
Multi-regional context …
- Agents of destruction: human & natural Multi-regional context …
Provenience / provenance
horizontally in the matrix and the
bias in interpretation (looting; preserv.)
Spatial
which & chronological
an artifact is deposited:setting
grave fill
for an in-situ artifact:
material =
in its provenience
which an artifact is found.
(= similar/related to matrix)
Artifacts & ecofacts
appear in different
“life
horizontally stages”
in and
the matrix and
the
- Everytypes of context
item removed from its matrix →
bias in interpretation (looting; preserv.)
(matrix):
which an artifact is deposited: grave fill
e.g., Undisturbed context
Artifacts & ecofacts
appear in different
“life
horizontally stages”
in and
the matrix and
the
- Everytypes of context
item removed from its matrix →
bias in interpretation (looting; preserv.) e.g., Plundered or re-used grave
(matrix):
e.g., Disturbed context
which an artifact is deposited: grave fill
3.1. Formation Processes:
- Infinite / innumerable formation
processes affecting the excavated
artifact assemblage and its matrix
from production through discarding,
dormancy, & rediscovery (taphonomy)
- Cultural formation processes
(c-transforms)
- Natural formation processes
(n-transforms)
The formation
- Human processes
impact is deliberate through
accidental manufacture,
are varied use, & complex:
i.e., = many re-useways in which
/ modification,
abandonment,
artifacts & ecofacts
re-discovery / disturbance,
appear inof excav.
items. contexts
The formation
artifact processes
assemblage and its matrix
areproduction
from varied through
& complex:
discarding,
i.e., = many ways in which
(c-transforms)
- appear in excav.
Natural formation contexts
processes
(n-transforms)
- Human impact is deliberate through

use,
re-use / modification,
abandonment,
of items.
The formation
artifact processes
assemblage and its matrix
areproduction
from varied through
& complex:
discarding,
(c-transforms)
- appear in excav.
Natural formation contexts
processes
(n-transforms)

use,
abandonment,
of items.
- Human impact is deliberate through Karnak Temple (Egypt)
accidental construction,
use / habitation,
abandonment,
etc.
of buildings. 100s of years of use → tourism
Antaeopolis Ptolemy VI
- Nature affects the burial & relative
preservation of archaeological record: 1798-1800 AD
The formation processes
Volcanic ash (pumice)
Wind borne
are varied sand/soil
& complex:
Flash floods, water erosion,
i.e., = manyetc.ways in which
relocating item.
artifacts
Animal&tunnels.
ecofacts
Etc.
appear in excav. contexts
Destroyed by locals to stop foreign visits
The formation
accidental processes
construction,
are varied & complex:
use / habitation,
abandonment,
appear etc.in excav. contexts
of buildings.

preservation of archaeological record:
Wind borne sand/soil
etc. relocating item.
Animal tunnels.
Etc.
The formation
accidental processes
construction,
use / habitation,
are varied & complex:
abandonment,
etc.
appear ofinbuildings.
excav. contexts

preservation of archaeological record:
Wind borne sand/soil
etc. relocating item.
Animal tunnels.
Etc.
Experimental archaeology: i.e., The erosion of a rampart & ditch
- Understanding the full range
of formation processes =
Stone axe marks
crucial to interpreting the past.
E.g., Preserved wood:
What marks do beavers’ teeth
leave versus stone axes, etc.?
→ interpretation will vary depending
on the accuracy of the identification.
E.g., Paleolithic human
Beaver teeth activities:
marks
“hunting” versus “scavenging”
Studying marks on bones → Stone axe marks
a. “Stone tool” cut marks versus
b. “Teeth marks”
Brain, Binford, & others suggested
large animals had first eaten game
before humans seized their prey;
others disagree!
- Experimental archaeology assessing
what things leave what marks.
Scavengers?
E.g., Paleolithic human activities:
Studying marks on bones →
before humans seized their prey;
others disagree!
Theories: Paleolithic humans hunting animals for food
i.e., “Hunters” versus “Scavengers”
Theories: Paleolithic humans seizing prey from carnivores
i.e., “Scavengers” versus “Hunters”
HOW can one discern whether early humans

- Hunted?
- Scavenged? … or both? (% =?)
E.g., Paleolithic human activities:
Cutting limestone
Studying marks on bones →
beforeCutting
humansthrough
seized their
oak prey;
others disagree!
4.1. Cultural form. processes:
How people have affected what
survives in the arch. record.
- Base level:
a. Primary (original) human association
b. Secondary (byproduct) human assoc.
with an artifact.
Primary human behavior:
Artifact: 1. Obtaining raw material
2. Production of an item
3. Use of item
4. Disposal/discarding an item
*. Complex modifying/recycling
Food: 1. Gathering/harvesting
2. Processing
3. Consumption
4. Discarded (excretion)
Need to identify stage for each item:
E.g., Item broken in prod.; cropland burnt.
Artifact life cycle: identifying acquisition …
What clues suggest this stage in the life cycle?

Artifact life cycle: identifying manufacture …

Artifact life cycle: identifying usage / application …

Artifact life cycle: identifying disposal…

- Deliberate burial of persons &
artifacts:
a. Hoards:
- Treasures often placed in cache
pits for concealment in conflict.
- Sometimes hoards are not
retrieved (many reasons).
- Sometimes = votive offerings
= foundation offerings
Human destruction of arch. record:
Numerous ways:
a. Accidental cutting into earlier remains
- grave pits; foundations; etc.
b. Deliberate destruction:
- Modifying; defacement; replacement
Burning may preserve items
E.g., unbaked clay tablets
grain
wattle & daub housing
5.1. Natural form. processes:
How nature affects what
survives in the arch. record.
- Nature affects preservation in the
the archaeological record . . .
5.2. Inorganic materials:
- Usually clay, stone & metals survive.
Stone tools: 2+ million years BP/durable
Can analyze micro-wear
(cutting wood; hides; etc.)
Baked clay: pottery, bricks, adobe, etc.
= long-lived / “indestructible.”
Japan: 16,000; NE: 9000 yrs
Salt-humidity destroys pots
Metals: Gold, silver & lead = durable
Copper & bronze oxidize in
acid soils (green stain)
Iron rusts (cast from hollow)
Sea water → metallic salts
Dry climates aid in preserving mud brick architecture
i.e., It normally disintegrates much more in wet climates.
Seawater aids in the
preservation of bronze:
e.g., Bronze Greek statue

head in various stages
of removing concretions:
i.e., = needs conservator
Cannons in seawater …
after cleaning conceretions
5.3. Organic materials:
- Archaeological matrix & climate
govern preservation of organic mat.
Matrix: = sediment / soil.
E.g., Chalk preserves animal &
human bones.
E.g., Acid soils disintegrate wood &
bone in several years
(discolorations = post holes).
E.g., Salt mines preserve organic
materials
E.g., Asphalt pits preserve organic
materials (La Brea tar pits)
Sometimes metal, salt, or oil in matrix
combat micro-organisms (i.e., bacteria):
E.g., Copper mines with wood, leather,
textiles, etc.
Climate:
Local climate (micro-climate):
E.g., Caves = protected:
-Limestone caves (alkaline) yield
great preservation of organic mat.
-Often undisturbed.
Regional climate (macro-climate):

E.g., Tropical climate = very
destructive:
-Much rainfall
-Acidic soils
-Warm temperature
-High humidity
-Erosion
-Vegetation
(growing & fragmenting)
-Insects
(consuming organics)
Temperate climate:
E.g., Europe; N. America
-Variable rainfall & temperature
usually destroys organic materials.
-Local factor(s) can aid preservation:
(e.g. chemical component excluding
bacteria and oxygen)
Natural disasters:
E.g., Freak preservation
- Violent storms → sand deposits
on coast (protecting materials).
- Mudslides → covering areas
and keeping out oxygen.
- Volcanic eruptions producing ash
(pumice) covering areas and
preserving forms.
Plaster-casting to obtain details.
5.4. Preservation of organic
materials: Extreme conditions:
Dry environments:
Aridity/dryness = minimal water presence
= minimize micro-organisms
= minimal decay
Egypt: Predynastic bodies preserved
naturally (skin; hair; nails)
America: SW Pueblo culture

Dead placed in dry caves and
rock shelters → natural mummies
(hair; clothing; basketry; leather).
Peru: Burials with tattooed bodies,

textiles, basketry, food, etc.
Chile: Oldest artificial mummies =

enhanced by aridity.
Dry environments:
= minimal decay



Dry environments:
= minimal decay



Dry environments:
= minimal decay
Egypt:
Chile: Predynastic
Chinchorrobodies
peoplepreserved
-mummies



Cold environments:
- Natural refrigeration preserves
for 1000s of years.
E.g., Siberia:
- Mammoths in permafrost/frozen
soil.
- Fell into crevices & buried by snow
and silt.
- Preserving flesh, hair, stomach
contents.
E.g., S. Siberia (Pazyryk in the Altai):
- Steppe nomad burial mounds
- Burials → moisture → frozen solid
permanently (total preservation).
- Wood, human skin (tattoos),
clothing, food, animals, etc.
Cold environments: Chieftain
- Natural refrigeration preserves
for 1000s of years.
E.g., Siberia:
- Mammoths in permafrost/frozen
soil.
- Fell into crevices & buried by snow
and silt.
- Preserving flesh, hair, stomach
contents.
Wall
E.g., S. Siberia (Pazyryk in the Altai):
hanging
- Steppe nomad burial mounds
- Burials → moisture → frozen solid
permanently (total preservation).
- Wood, human skin (tattoos),
clothing, food, animals, etc.
Cold environments:
E.g., Site of Pazyryk in southern Siberia
ca. 400 B.C. steppe burial mounds
Chieftain’s body with preserved tattoos
Preserved wall hanging of horseman
approached a seated ruler/chieftain.
Cold
Environments:
- 15-16th cent. AD
- Human sacrifices
on high mt. peaks:
esp. young children
- Frozen by natural
cold into “mummies”
Ice Man –frozen in snow & ice
3,200 BC
500 yr old Inupiat house
destroyed by winter storm.
They had anthracosis:
Black lungs from smoke.
= frozen in storm
-2 females
-Wooden
goggles,
-Arrows in
skin wrap
-Skin bag
+ weights
-Hide frag.
-Whale
bone pick
-Ivory comb
-Wooden
tools
-Blanket
-Etc.
5.5. Wet environments. 1750 AD mudslide
Whaling settlement
Wetland sites:
- Occur in lakes, swamps, marshes,
fens, and peat bogs.
- Have continuous wet & airless
(anaerobic/anoxic) conditions
→ preserves organic items.
NW U.S.: Ozette site
- John Coles (UK): 75-90% (→100%)
of items = organic at his sites.
- Wetland sites = endangered now.
- Wetland = 6% of global land area.
50,000+ artifacts
Waterlogged site:
- Ozette site AD 1700 mudslide
Waterlogged site: Ozette: wooden carving tool & oil bowl
Waterlogged site: Ozette site
Waterlogged site: Ozette site
- Whale harpoon blade (mussel shell)
- Cedar bark pouch
2016: Well-preserved Bronze Age site in Britain (1000-800 BC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35280290
Preserved textiles (carbonized)
Preserved posts from platform

Cambridgeshire (BBC Jan 12, 2016):
• Wall collapse across floor in Bronze
Age platform-house (1000-800 BC).
Cambridgeshire: Food remains found in vessels (BBC Jan. 2016)
Pbs/Nova: After Stonehenge
• 60 minute documentary on
this Bronze Age site in
eastern Britain (c.1000 BCE)
• Examines the architecture,
features, artifacts & ecofacts,
• Adopts experimental arch-
aeology: e.g., reconstructed
housing & burning …
• Assesses site function, type
of community, its placement,
trade, destruction, etc.
• Interviewing archaeologists,
showing site & artifacts,
CGI reconstructions, and
re-enactments …
• Very good – excellent doc.
Acidic peat bogs:
- Preserve wood & plants
- May disintegrate bone, iron, pottery
- Other peat bogs preserve most
organic items.
Peat bogs:
- Mostly in northern hemisphere
- E.g., Somerset levels: 4000 BC
Iron Age lake villages Tollund Fen, Denmark
Wooden tracks/roads (1.6 km)
Wooden carts
Coastal marshes:
- Find log boats,
paddles,
fish nets,
fish weirs.
“Seahenge” at Holme-next-the-Sea
Waterlogged
Environment:
Peat bogs preserve →
E.g., Old Croghan Man
- Stabbed
- Decapitated
- Mutilated
Waterlogged environment: ca. 2,050 BC coastal site buried by sand & brine.
Bog bodies: NW Europe (Iron Age)
- Most murdered, executed, sacrificed
- E.g., Tollund man (Denmark)
Presence of tannic acid aids preservation
Lake dwellings:
- E.g., Swiss lake edge settlements
- Much preserved: buildings, items,
textiles and food.
- Lumber for tree ring dating.
Waterfront towns/cities:
- Roman London; 18th cent New York (ship)
- Coastal erosion revealing submerged
structures.
- Florida: Okeechobee Basin 1st. Millennium
burial platform (fire → collapsed → water)
Problems:
- Waterlogged sites disintegrate quickly
after exposure (*hydrate before treating)
- Conservation expensive (4x dry land site)
6. Summary:
1. Archaeological evidence
relies upon past-present
human interactions with
archaeological record.
relies upon beneficial &
destructive nat. conditions
affecting the archaeological
record
relies upon archaeologists’
ability to locate, realize,
excavate & preserve it.
Broad site types:
1. Dry sites
2. Cold sites
3. Waterlogged sites
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY:
Looking at the evidence

and
CONTEXT …
BOTTOM – UP …
ANTH.106: Egyptology and
Anthropological Archaeology
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:
Making meaning of the archaeological record
Versus
Textual / inscriptional Material + ecofact
data (i.e., sources) data (i.e., sources)
Archaeology, including anthropological archaeology, entails asking:
• WHEN … does a cultural assemblage/horizon date? (Abs.-Rel.)
… does it occur in relation to another culture? (Abs.-Rel.)
… Etc. (i.e., many other questions …)
• WHY & HOW … did agriculture & animal domestication appear?
… does change occur within a given culture?
• WHAT … did various artifacts & symbols signify?
… type of social organization = present in a given culture?
• WHO … made a specific artifact, or group of artifact types?
… is represented by local artifacts vs. non-local artifacts?
• An INFINITE number of other questions (limited by our minds & means)
→This leads to the development of theoretical approaches for assessing
the past in order to answer such questions (esp. in non-lit. societies).
E.g., One can examine diverse mechanisms in modern cultures
in an effort to understand better the mechanisms in similar
past cultures: i.e.,ethnoarchaeological approach (using caution!)
Starting “small”
(bottom-up)
Dealing with non-literate past
societies:
• To what culture does this pot

belong?
societies:

belong?
= Naqada II (Gerzean) culture
from middle Egypt.
Note: We have know

this for 100+ years,
but the original
discoverers did not.
i.e., “New Race” theory+
In the case of some current,

poorly explored areas
and/or periods, one might
encounter similar unknown
or little known artifacts,
features, …
Spread of Naqada II-III culture: WHAT WE KNOW …
BUTO
In central (middle) Egypt Naqada
cultural
• Naqada II: southern pottery
= 2% at Buto & later
• Naqada II: southern pottery political
→ 40% at Buto domination
• Naqada III: southern pottery
→ 99% at Buto
N.2 N.3
NAQADA
societies:

belong?
from middle Egypt.
• To what time period does this
pot (type) date?
societies:

belong?
from middle Egypt (context).
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
= late Predynastic (predates Dyn.1)
Initially: Relative sequence dating …

Later: Radiocarbon dating (1950s+)
Vertical cross-section of soil revealing human through natural
stratigraphy: i.e., sequence of building, use, erosion, disturbance+
Each stage in the sequence, from earliest to most recent,

can be assigned a locus number & described →relative stratigraphy
ideally one must define & excavate every layer (loc.) & its artifacts
Sequence dating (seriation)
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/3dpetriemuseum/stories/excavation-and-rediscovery/petries-life
Nile Valley Predynastic chronology:
→ Stratified & Seq. Dates elsewhere
(late) Neolithic:
5,500 BC (“Tasian”) Fayum Merimde
3,800 BC Badarian A Beni-Salame
Predynastic: Naqada el-Omari A

3,800 BC Amratian N-1A
3,500 BC N-1B
3,550 BC Early N-1C

3,400 BC Gerzean N-2A Maadi el-Omari B
N-2B
3,400 BC Middle
3,300 BC Gerzean N-2C Maadi el-Omari C
3,300 BC Late N-2D.1

3,200 BC Gerzean N-2D.2 Maadi
3,200 BC Semainian N-3A.1

3,050 BC (Protodyn.) N-3A.2 Maadi
4. When? Dating Methods and Chronology. Dating context via
8.2.b. C14 history & basis of method. assoc. samples
Radiocarbon
• 1949 W. Libby obtained 1st C14 date
dates calibrated
• Need organic samples-wood
with tree-rings seq.
-charcoal
-seeds
-plants
-bones
• Various counting errors, cosmic
radiation, etc. → uncertainty in
measurements (+/- std. deviation).
• Req. samples’ size = decreasing
a. 1950s-60s: 10-20 g. wood
b. 1970s-80s: 5 g pure carbon
c. Now: 5-10 mg samples
→ test precious items
• C14 dates expressed before 1950 AD
when listing years BP (before present)
• +/-100 yrs 68% → +/-200 yrs 95%
• Calibration with tree-rings → calendar
years. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1MKDC_enUS774US774&biw=1530&bih=714&tbm=isch&sa
4. When? Dating Methods and Chronology.
9.1. Trapped electron dating: Dating the pottery itself …
• Thermoluminescence (TL), optical, TL / OSL = increasing inaccurate …
& electron spin resonance dating
display indirect radioactive decay.
• Focus on radiation received by sample
(assuming annual dose = constant).
9.2.a. Thermoluminescence dating:
• TL advantages versus C14, it …
a. dates pottery (i.e., clay)
b. “dates” inorganic items (burnt flint)
earlier than C14 limit (50,000 BP)
9.2.b. Basis ofcan
TL-dating method:
be used on pottery,
• Dating minerals set to “0” by 500 C/932 F
and burnt flint, etc. (i.e., non-org.),
accidentally/intentionally (pottery; flints)
but ithas
• Clay has an increasingly
some broad
radioactive elements
error range
obtained the&earlier
internally in time
externally.
one goes
• Gauge … radioactivity → accuracy
site soil’s
OLS
(1 = usedradiation
yr. capsule; more now … (need
counter; sample) specialist, including for sampling)
• Lab heats sample; measures light radiation
Cross-cultural comparisons:
i.e., to dated contexts elsewhere (using 14C etc.) Determining pottery placement
within a culture & time frame
→
Search for parallel forms & decoration
from secure contexts:
E.g., Pottery studies
(from broad periods → sub-periods)
societies:

belong?
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
• How was this pottery container
made?
societies:

belong?
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
made?
= Hand made vessel (pre-wheel?)
Initially: Surface examination

& broken sections
Later: More advanced
techniques: E.g.,
scanning electron
microscopes, etc.
Coil-built technique
evident in Naqada II
decorated pottery jar
Typical marks on later
(Middle Kingdom)
wheel-made pottery
societies:

belong?
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
made?
• Is the pottery fabric local,
regional, or imported?
societies:

belong?
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
made?
= Local/regional desert marl (NAA)
Initially: Examining fabric
by eye / visually
techniques: NAA+
Silt
Desert marl fabric

(Naqada II)
societies:

belong?
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
made?
• Is it accompanied by imported
pottery? What does this imply?
CONTEXT (?)
societies:

belong?
pot (type) date?
= ca. 3,500–3,200 BCE (C14)
made?
• Is it accompanied by imported
pottery? What does this imply?
= Yes and this implies contact with
an (adjacent) region:
→ Direct trade? Indirect trade?
Gifts? Conquest? Colony? Etc. … CONTEXT (?)
Palestinian Products
In Predynastic Egypt:
• Late Naqada II-III
Hierakonpolis Tomb 11:

• Hybrid Egyptian-Palestinian
wavy-handled vessels
Abydos Tomb U-j:

• Over 400 Palestinian-style
jars (BUT = in local clays).
societies:
• What was the function of this

vessel, or vessel type?
societies:

= Closed vessel = long term storage
Storing a liquid, or a substance
that solidified/congealed (fat?).
(try residue analysis)
Initially: Looking at any

contents found
in such vessels
and identifying …
techniques: E.g.,
Residue analysis
of interior wall of
container …
Other analysis etc.
societies:

• Wavy-ledge handle function?
societies:

= Lifting in short-term operation
(inefficient for carrying over dist.)
Initially: Assessing various

potential usages
techniques: E.g.,
Wear pattern
analysis (sem), +
experimental
archaeology, etc.
societies:

• Lug-handle function?
societies:

= Suspension by cord/rope
(possibly in carrying over a dist.)
Dual function: lifting & carrying.
Initially: Assessing various
potential usages
Later: E.g., Wear pattern
analysis (sem), +
experimental arch.
societies:

= Suspension by cord/rope
(possibly in carrying over a dist.)
• Why a pointed/rounded base?
societies:
•Initially:
What wasAssessing
the function various
of this
vessel, orpotential
vessel type?usages
Later:
Storing a E.g., Wear
liquid, or pattern
a substance
that solidified/congealed
analysis (sem), (fat?).+
experimental arch.,
comparative data
(inefficientsuch as looking
for carrying for
over dist.)
• Lug-handle pointed impressions
function?
= Suspension of similar size in
by cord/rope
(possibly floors
in carrying
or over a dist.)
in-situ e.g.
• Why a pointed/rounded base?
= Perhaps for better placement in
uneven sand??? (i.e., inserted)
= Perhaps optimum design for
shipping (i.e., stacking)
= Efficient stacking & long-distance
shipping appears to be one aim.
societies:
• What do the motifs signify?

a. Cross-hatching?
i.e., AssessingFencing?
Decoration? the meaning(s),
Other?
role(s), significance, etc.,
of the “decoration” →
• HOW do we do this???
societies:

a. Cross-hatching?
Decoration? Fencing? Other?
i.e., Assessing the meaning(s),
societies:

a. Cross-hatching?
b. Birds: flamingoes? Ostriches?
Savannah vs. water dwelling.
societies:

a. Cross-hatching?
c. Rounded mounds: mountains?
Desert hills alongside Nile Valley

societies:

a. Cross-hatching?
d. Curved form with frond at front,
twin towers, and vertical lines:
Fortification with gatehouse?
Riverine boat with oars?
Other?
Initially: Assessing and ID

various motifs
Later: Building up a
comparative data
base & analysis
of such motifs+ID
Naqada II (Gerzean)
“boat” motif is popular on pottery.
some elite tombs (Hierakonpolis),
some terracotta models, and
in rock art in the adjacent desert
societies:

a.i.e.,
Cross-hatching?
Assessing the meaning(s),
of the
b. Birds: “decoration”
flamingoes? →
Ostriches?
Riverine boar with oars?
Other?
e. Anthropoid figures:
(Female) figure with raised arms
→ Typical Predyn. Female figs.
(Male) figures with throw-sticks
and feather headdresses
→ Typical later Libyan (Western
Desert) figures: hunters.
Common female motif in Naqada II (Gerzean)
societies:

a.i.e.,
Cross-hatching?
Assessing the meaning(s),
of the
b. Birds: “decoration”
flamingoes? →
Ostriches?
Riverine boar with oars?
Other?
e. Anthropoid figures:
(Female) figure with raised arms
→ Typical Predyn. female figs.
(Male) figures with throw-sticks
and feather headdresses
→ Typical later Libyan (Western
Desert) figures: hunters.
= Predyn. Nile Valley landscape
societies:
• Who would own such a pot?

i.e., Looking at the context
of the vessel types find
spots:
For example: Are there any

visible affiliations with specific …
• Humans (or even animals?)
• Gender?: Male; female; both
• Age?: Infant; child; adl.; adult;
elderly? Some/all …?
• Rank?: Commoner vs elite
• Role / profession?
• Daily life contexts?
• Ritual usage?
• Mortuary application?
• Etc.
societies:

= Such pottery is valued and is
mended when broken:
i.e., it is not cheap / not valueless!
Initially: Assessing contexts

and individual pots
though the overall
examples of this
type of artifact …
comparative data
base & analysis
of such motifs+ID
societies:

mended when broken:
= It appears in moderate--wealthier
graves, suggesting a closer
association with the “elite”
(society has social stratification)
Initially: Assessing contexts

and individual pots
though the overall
examples of this
type of artifact …
comparative data
base & analysis
of such motifs+ID
Naqada II (Gerzean) burial
Naqada II period: ca. 3,500 – 3,200 BC
Naqada:
-Rectangular houses and graves
appear in Naqada II (like this pot …)
-Social stratification = increasing
-Cast-hammered copper tools

societies:

mended when broken:
= It is found exported to Nubia,
the Delta, and SW Palestine.
and is copied locally (in silt, etc.).
i.e., It is a desirable item, both for
its contents, itself, & exotic nature
(in essence it = a prestige good).
Predynastic
Egyptian
influence
in EB I
Syria:
• Egyptian
pottery
a). Lug-handled
vessels
(F-ware)
Chalcolithic = much of Predynastic.
EB I = Early Bronze Age I in Syria-Palestine

contemporary with late Predyn.- Dyn.1
EB II = Early Bronze Age II (late Dyn.1 – Dyn.2)

Predynastic
Egyptian
influence
in A-Group
Nubia (Sudan)
4,000-3000 BC
Egy. Naqada 2
Pottery, etc.
societies:

mended when broken:
• Does it define a culture / polity?
societies:

mended when broken:
• Does it define a culture / polity?
= Its growing distribution and slow
domination of the Delta pottery
parallels the known political
domination of the north by south:
i.e., It characterizes Upper Egypt.
Spread of Naqada II-III culture:
BUTO
3,500 – 3,050 BC Naqada
cultural
• Naqada II: southern pottery
= 2% at Buto & later
• Naqada II: southern pottery political
→ 40% at Buto domination
• Naqada III: southern pottery
→ 99% at Buto
NAQADA
societies:
• The importance of CONTEXT:
= Noting where each example of
this pot type appears in rel. to …
i.e., Socio-economic associations?
Well-to-do →elite associations
i.e., Cultural associations?
Upper (southern) Egypt origin
with exports abroad (prestige)
i.e., Gender associations?
Male manufacture →gen. usage
Male & female (in dec. & use)
i.e., Age associations?
Normally adults(some children)
i.e., Habitation contexts?
Not found in general potter’s
workshop (= specialty product)
i.e., Context of usage?
Occupation & esp. mortuary use
(cultic use? like other fine pots)
Naqada IIa-b C14: 3590+/-117
Kiln 5 m. away (6 x 5 m)
-8-10 shallow basins
-Northern opening (stoke hole)
-Produced rough wares only
-300,000 sherds (med.-sized
storage jars/cooking pots)
Potter’s house: accidentally burnt-down

4 x 3.5 m. house/workshop (1.45 m high)
Floor sunken 50 cm into ground.
mud mortar, wattle and daub walls-roof.
• Oven in mud platform
• Store jar sunk in floor
• Reed & post animal pens nearby
Donkey bones (pottery re-distribution?)
i.e., Decorated pots = specialized prod.
Naqada period: potter’s workshop outside town at Hierakonpolis (Upper/Southern Egypt)
Extending assessment from a specific artifact / artifact type (i.e., Naqada II pot)
to assessing ALL (surviving) artifacts, faunal-floral remains, features, sites, etc.
• Imagine assessing 10s of 1000s
of individual artifacts from a single
Naqada II village, from 1 generation.
• Imagine the far greater quantity of
lost artifacts, remains, & past lives:
Food, clothing, organic items, etc.
Daily life, relationships, stories, etc.
→ We will almost certainly never
be able to reconstruct even a
fraction of what existed during
the past lifetime of a village, town,
culture, or broader region.
→ At best, ever more careful excav.,
retrieval, analysis, & the application
of diverse scientific and theoretical
approaches will enable us to
maximize our reconstructions of
past lifeways (esp. in non-lit. soc.)
Naqada 2: AN EXPANDED HORIZON
3500-3200 BC
• rectangular
houses-graves
• social
stratification
• Cast-hammered
copper tools
Using ethnoarchaeology to assess past cultures / populations:
(Studying modern H-G = more applicable to Naqada I in Egypt)
4.3. Investigating territories in
mobile societies:
• Study region to assess seasonal
activity & movement of mobile
H&G (annual life cycle)
• Ethnoarchaeology reveals H&G
have annual home territories:
- Home base camp
- Transitory camps
- Hunting blinds
- Butchery / kill sites
- Storage pits / caches
• Need to find large sites (> items)
off/non-sites (< items)
(1-2 items in 10 m sq.)
• R. Foley Amboseli region, Kenya:
8,531 stone tools from 257 sample
areas in 600 sq. km (25 x 25 km) area
Debris pattern from modern Hunter-gatherers

25 x 25 km range: i.e., one-day’s journey → Potential debris pattern from past H-G.
• Another ethnographic study:
Determined a discard rate for
stone tools across different
environmental & vegetative areas.
- Band of 25 persons discarded
163,000 items in their territory
in one year (18 items/day/person).
- These items concentrated at their
home base & transitory camps. Hunter-
• Need to assess entire annual gatherers
region for hunter-gatherers (band)
• One site is only part of a larger
annual pattern/activities.
• H&G groups:
- Huts of kin are placed closer
- Tested this hypothesis by
ethnoarchaeology.
E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
• Toss zone patterns →
infer number of persons at a hearth
• This allowed Binford to re-interpret

other archaeological reconstructions
(a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth
patterns).
• Other studies revealed that the

preserved material culture cannot
always distinguish individual
regional cultures.
• There are other factors …

E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
• Toss zone patterns →
infer number of persons at a hearth
• This allowed Binford to re-interpret

other archaeological reconstructions
(a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth
patterns).
• Other studies revealed that the

preserved material culture cannot
always distinguish individual
regional cultures.
• There are other factors …

CONCLUSION:
• The following course will be adapt a broad array of diverse
approaches & techniques for reconstructing var. past cultures.
• Renfrew and Bahn’s 2016 textbook, Archaeology: Theories,
Methods, and Practice, is 1 of the best introductions to this …
• This course will reveal the more specific approaches required in
var. fields, including archaeology, language, art, architecture, etc

Anth 106 PPT Lecture 3 Summary of and Su

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anth 106 PPT Lecture 3 Summary of and Su

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Archaeology: Spring 2023

Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.2

D. Case Study: ARTIFACTS and CONTEXT ... 78

(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …

(4). Ask questions during the class if

(5). Complete optional materials:

Great Wall = visible from space

E.g., Fore-knowledge to enable

define “an artifact”?

- Human impact is deliberate through

- Human impact is deliberate through

- Nature affects the burial & relative

- Nature affects the burial & relative

HOW can one discern whether early humans

What clues suggest this stage in the life cycle?

What clues suggest this stage in the life cycle?

What clues suggest this stage in the life cycle?

What clues suggest this stage in the life cycle?

e.g., Bronze Greek statue

Regional climate (macro-climate):

America: SW Pueblo culture

Peru: Burials with tattooed bodies,

Chile: Oldest artificial mummies =

America: SW Pueblo culture

Peru: Burials with tattooed bodies,

Chile: Oldest artificial mummies =

America: SW Pueblo culture

Peru: Burials with tattooed bodies,

Chile: Oldest artificial mummies =

America: SW Pueblo culture

Peru: Burials with tattooed bodies,

Chile: Oldest artificial mummies =

Preserved textiles (carbonized)

Preserved posts from platform

Looking at the evidence

• To what culture does this pot

• To what culture does this pot

Note: We have know

In the case of some current,

• To what culture does this pot

• To what culture does this pot

Initially: Relative sequence dating …

Each stage in the sequence, from earliest to most recent,

Predynastic: Naqada el-Omari A

3,550 BC Early N-1C

3,300 BC Late N-2D.1

3,200 BC Semainian N-3A.1

• To what culture does this pot

• To what culture does this pot

Initially: Surface examination

• To what culture does this pot

• To what culture does this pot

Desert marl fabric

• To what culture does this pot

• To what culture does this pot

Hierakonpolis Tomb 11:

Abydos Tomb U-j:

• What was the function of this

• What was the function of this

Initially: Looking at any

• What was the function of this

• What was the function of this