anth.106 ppt. lecture-14: summary of & supplement to renfrew & bahn textbook, chp. 11: who...

Introduction to Archaeology: Spring 2021

Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.11

Lect.-23: Who Were They? What Were

They Like? The Archaeology of people.Notes and images compiled by Gregory Mumford (© 2021) ADD IMAGES

Contents:

11. Who were they? What were they like? Archaeology of People.

1. Introduction: 5

Introducing studying past humans … 6

2. Identifying physical attributes / human abilities: 8

a. Variety of the human remains: 9

b. Identifying gender / Which sex? 13

c. How long did they live? 16

(i). Interpreting age at death 21

d. What was their height and weight? 22

e. What did they look like? 24

f. How were they related? 30

3. Assessing human abilities: 38

a. Walking: Bipedalism 39

b. Which hand did they use? 43

c. When did speech develop? 46

d. Identifying other kinds of behaviour 51

Contents:

10. Who were they? What were they like? Archaeology of People.

4. Disease, deformity and death: 66

a. Paleopathology 67

b. Evidence in soft tissue 69

c. Parasites and viruses 72

d. Skeletal evidence for deformity 77

e. Teeth 83

f. (Past) Medical knowledge 85

5. Assessing nutrition (diet …): 87

a. Assessing nutrition 88

b. Assessing malnutrition 91

c. Comparing diets: the rise of agriculture 94

6. Population studies: 97

7. Diversity and evolution: 104

Studying genes: our past within ourselves. 105

8. Questions of identity: 112

9. Summary: 114

10. CASE STUDY: Ethnicity –Kushites & Egyptians 117

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.

(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?

https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/

https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/

Renfrew and Bahn

2019 (8th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?

What were they like?

The Archaeology of people.

(1). Introduction …

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.11

11. Who Were They? What Were They Like?

The Archaeology of People.1.1. Introduction:

• Archaeology aspires to reconstruct

people’s lives from material remains

• Diverse specialists provide info.

on physical, floral & other remains.

• Archaeologists interpret this data

collectively to provide the maximum

reconstruction of ancient societies.

• Physical anthropology was misused

in 1800s – early 1900s to promote

‘racial superiority’.

• Current physical anthropologists

are more hesitant to ID different ethnic

groupings based on osteological

measurements.



The Archaeology of People.

• Most osteologists identify

a. gender,

b. age of death,

c. health,

d. familial relationships

• Biochemistry and genetics

are enabling & will enable

further research into

past racial & ethnic groupings.

→ SEE end of lecture for a case study

on identifying ethnicity in an

Egyptian Middle Kingdom – New

Kingdom fort in Northern Sudan:

i.e., Kushite peoples alongside

an Egyptian garrison.

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(2). Variety of the evidence:

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



Variety of the evidence:

(a). Variety of human remains



The Archaeology of People.1.2. The variety of human remains.

• Intact & virtually intact skeletal remains

are best for analysis.

• Most bones, except the ribs, easily

distinguish humans from animals.

• Sometimes hair fragments ID human

remains via a microscope.

• In disarticulated multiple burials, or

cremations, quantifying key diagnostic

bones generates a min. no. of individuals.

• Human remains may be exceptionally

well-preserved via natural desiccation:

a. Freeze-dried (cold sites)

b. Peat/bog burials (wet sites)

• Preservation of soft tissues allows more

observation on hair length, style, color,

skin color, marks (wrinkles; scars; tattoos)




• Hollows left by disintegrated burials

allow some analysis via plaster casts:

E.g., Pompeii.

• Ultraviolet light helps highlight

disintegrated bone remains in acidic soil

E.g., Sutton Hoo.

• Amino acids, etc., may reveal gender

and blood groups of individual corpses.

Pompeii: reconstruction. Plaster cast from hollow.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(b). Identifying gender …



The Archaeology of People.2.1. Identifying physical attributes.

• One can assess gender, age at death,

form (build), appearance, relationships?

Etc.

2.2. Which sex?

• Intact bodies: genitalia indicate gender

• Frag. bodies: breasts,beards,moustaches

• Less: Poss. assoc. garments & artifacts.

• Skeletons & bone remains (85% acc.):

Pelvis shape → gender, but may vary by

population (Bantu; Bushmen; Europeans)

Poss. Size: male bones = often larger,

longer, stronger, more muscle markings.

Males: pronounced proximal ends of arm

& thigh bones.

Females: shorter sternum (chest bone)




Male skulls:

• Larger pronounced brow ridges

• Sloping forehead(?)

• Pronounced jaw & teeth

• Larger cranium: 1450-1300 cc

• Other techniques:

See textbook

• gender ID for Children:

- Gender ID = more difficult

- 50% accuracy

- Dental measurements = helpful

- Mandible data may help

- DNA analysis (even in feces)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(c). Identifying lifespan …




2.3. How long did they live?

• Age at death = generally expressed

as infant, young, adult, and old.

• It is hard to generate a chronometric

measurement in years & months.

• Teeth = a good indicator of age:

Tooth eruption; milk teeth replacement;

permanent teeth stage; wear; etc.

• Tooth enamel growth = regular rate

with new ridge/week (SEM microscope).

• Smaller creatures mature more quickly:

i.e., Ancestor hominids = smaller (Tooth

wear →younger death than modern data).

• Tooth crown & root (later) mature by 20.

• Root tips gradually become rounded

• Old teeth have dentine in pulp cavities.

• Cementum layers around permanent

tooth roots = age indicators.




• Bones as age indicator:

• Fusing of bone ends (epiphyses)

reveal rel. age of young people.

• Collarbone is fully fused around 26

years.

• Synostosis: joining of bones

E.g., Spine base (sacrum) fuses 16-23

• Cranium sutures fuse increasingly

(some sutures may remain unfused)

• Skull thickens in immature persons

• All bones generally get thinner and

lighter in old age.

• Adult rib bone ends become irregular.




• Frag. bones as age indicator:

• Bone microstructure changes with

age:

- Outer rings within adult long

bones disappear with aging.

- More (circular) osteons appear

within long bones.

• Accuracy within 5 years.

• Chemical analysis:

The ratio of two types of acid in

dentine:

a. L-isomer slowly converts to

D-isomer via racemization.

b. D/L-ratio increases from 8-83 yrs

c. BUT, it continues after death

→ need to assess burial conditions.

Reconstructing the Past: Dated texts.

- Identified human

remains and/or known

historical figures:

- Regnal year dates per

ruler. → some age clues

via reign-length estimates.

- Some co-regency

confusions (i.e., Egyptians

counted double dates).

Textual information for

various persons known to

have served under

certain rulers

→ general idea of age

(for identified persons)



The Archaeology of People.2.3.a. Interpreting age at death.

• Generate av. & max. lifespan of burial

population/sample.

• Be cautious in interpreting “av. age at death”

• Most deaths = in infancy & old age

→ an “average” around “30 years”.

BUT, in reality few people die in 30s.

• Neanderthals: very few reached 50

most died before 40

• Compare aging & gender data:

More Prehistoric females died before

40 than males owing to childbirth issues

• Prehistoric Chile: males → 50 yrs

females → 47/48 yrs

• Roman Cirencester: males → 40.8 yrs

females 37.8 yrs

• Remember cemetery has % of community

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(d). Identifying height

and weight …



The Archaeology of People.2.4. What was their height & weight?

• Intact bodies allow height measurements

• Some body parts enable est. height calculation

Leg bones → rough height (regression equation)

• However, leg bone height ratios vary:

-Australian & African leg bones 54% stature

-Asian population leg bones 45% stature

(mean femural stature = +/- 5 cm).

-Romans: Av. female 1.57 m; male 1.69 m.

Arm bones:

• Length →allows some height estimate

Foot length / foot prints:

• 15.5% adult male height; 16%-17% child height

Weight:

• Intact body’s dry weight: 25-30% of live weight

• Height = clue to normal weight range in life

• Early hominids have different calculations.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(e). Identifying appearance



The Archaeology of People.2.5. What did they look like?

• Preserved bodies = ideal:

-Tollund man; Egy. mummies.

• Portraits:

-Upper paleolithic+; mummy cases.

• Sculpture:

-Terracotta warriors (Xi’an, China)

- Greek & Roman busts.

• Life & death masks:

-Sometimes comparable with portraits

• Comparisons between skeletal

remains & portraits:

15th cent. AD: Marie de Bourgogne

Tsar Nicholas II & Alexandra remains.

• Other info:

Qn.Tiye hair locket (labelled) in Tut’s tomb

compared with unidentified mummy.

LP sculpture:

• Increased piety

& naturalism

• King subordinate

Roman art, sculpture, & architecture:

• Roman art = grew from Greek art

(arriving via Italy & Sicily; Etruscans)

• Roman architecture developed through

practical requirements

• Innovations: moulding & mortar;

baked bricks; arch & vault techniques.

• Portrait busts: replicating “exact features”

of face versus Greek idealization of

human form (perfect physique)

• Historic relief, including triumphal

processions.

• Wall paintings decorating homes, etc.

• Later mosaic art (later Antiquity)




• Facial reconstruction:

Laser scanning camera

3-D model cut from hard foam

• Stereolithography:

Replicating Iceman face 5300 BP

• Multiple scans:

Replicate full skeleton & features

without touching remains.

• See info box (p. 438):

Confirming if skeleton matched

terracotta sarcophagus identified

as Seianti Hanunia Tlesnasa:

-Radio carbon confirmed dates

-Feature reconstruction = same!

Dyn.17 Qurneh burial (Petrie):

• 19-21 year old female Egyptian?

Kushite?

• wrapped in linen

• placed in partly gilded Rishi-coffin

• Mummy contains jewellery:

a. gold collar

b. shell bangles

c. scarab

d. earrings

e. electrum girdle (with shells)

• Text faint → no name known.

• Note: Classic Kerma beaker

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(f). Identifying relationships

(between bodies/persons)



The Archaeology of People.2.6. How were they related?

• Assessing kinship between individuals:

a. Skull shape comparison (features)

b. Hair analysis

c. Dental morphology: Hereditary anomalies

d. Soft tissues: blood group comparison

bone (30,000 → pres)

dentine (protein analysis;

radioimmunoassay)

Immunological testing → blood groups

A-B-O system narrows relationships

Tut’s skull similar to KV55 body

Tissue → both = blood group A

both subgroup 2 antigens M & N

KV55 body Smenkhkare vs. A.IV

e. DNA analysis of mitochondrial DNA

from peat bog victims & mummies.

Can extract DNA from anc. bone & teeth

40,000 BP (polymerase chain reaction)

Smenkhkare vs Akhenaten.

New Kingdom Egypt,

Late Dynasty 18,

14th cent. BCE:

KV-55: → WHO’S BODY ???

- 1907: Davis discovered

Tomb 55 in Valley of Kings

- Reused undecorated royal tomb

- Entered several times,

but it still retained some

key funerary products.

- Gilded wooden coffin originally

made for female (Qn Kiya?), but

converted into king's coffin.

- After burial sealed, later Egyptian

officials rediscovered it and tore

the gilded face plate off the coffin

and cut out the cartouche carefully.

KV55: Smenkhkare vs Akhenaten.

A rumoured cartouche of Smenkhkare:

a. Male (slightly feminine features)

b. Fragile constitution

c. Closely related to Tutankhamun

(physically & same blood group).

d. Dentition reveals mid-30s

e. New X-Rays reveal 35+ years

f. 1.7 m high

Tomb items → inscriptional evidence

& stylistic forms for 6 persons:

1. Amenhotep III

2. Qn Tiye

3. Qn Kiya

4. Qn Sitamun

5. Akhenaten

6. Tutankhamun

DNA/study claims = Akhenaten; but = still debated

Tutankhamun:

elder fetus

Tutankhamun:

Younger fetus

Tutankhamun & his family:

Medical assessment via CT-scan:

• Marfans syndrome found in …

(a). Larger fetus (i.e., definite MFS)

(b). Smaller fetus (probable MFS)

(c). Ankhesenpaaten (body from KV21)

• Marfans syndrome NOT found in …

(d). Tutankhamun (excluded)

• Implications: Akhenaten’s daughter

(Ankhesenpaaten) & his grandchildren

(the fetuses) had Marfans syndrome

→ probably means Akhenaten had it!

KV.55 body identity = now “confirmed”:

• Seems proven to be “Akhenaten.”

• Unsure whether MFS = found in it.

Sources:

- Communication from A. Burridge: she

examined Tut’s fetuses by X-ray (March 2008)

- Discovery Channel program:

Tutankhamun Unwrapped – Life & Death

Smenkhkare vs Akhenaten.

KV-55: Several examinations of body:

a. Male (slightly feminine features; initially said to be female)

b. Fragile constitution →now = bones

c. Closely related to Tutankhamun

(physically & same blood group).

d. New: Dentition reveals ‘mid-30s’DEBATED(!)

e. New: X-Rays reveal ‘35+ years’DEBATED(!)

f. 1.7 m high

Tomb items → inscriptional evidence

& stylistic forms for 6 persons:

1. Amenhotep III

2. Qn Tiye

3. Qn Kiya

4. Qn Sitamun

5. Akhenaten

6. Tutankhamun

DNA/study claims = Akhenaten; but still debated

• Despite such tests,

gen. findings, and

these conclusions,

the procedures have

not met with full

agreement: i.e., =

some debates still.

2015

Many debates continue regarding KV55 mummy

p.203 “The problematic “mummy” of KV55”

D. C. Forbes

Reconstructing relationships at Deir el-Medineh:

within & between families (Dyns.18-20: 1550-1070)

Textual

data &

physical

remains

sufficient

→ …

details on

lives, var.

relations,

etc.

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(3). Assessing human

abilities:

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



Assessing human abilities:

(a). Walking …




3.1. Assessing human abilities.

• Assessing past human abilities in

diverse activities.

3.2. Walking: Bipedalism

• Can analyze skeletal remains to

assess evolution of walking.

E.g., Lucy: A. Afarensis

a. Some argue = walking & using trees

b. Others argue she = fully bipedal

BUT, her pelvis = still like chimp

• Spinal column entry hole in skull

gives clue to bipedalism:

-Can x-ray fossils (CAT/CT scan) to

assess carriage of head

E.g., A. Africanus (3-2 millennium BP)

shows evidence of bipedalism.



The Archaeology of People.3.2.a. Footprints in time.

• Early hominid footprints from Laetoli

(Tanzania) have yielded much data on

early hominids from 3.75 - 3.6 mill BP

• Print shape: → bipedal?

- Raised arch in foot

- Rounded heel

- Pronounced ball

- Big toe

- Weight-bearing pressure pattern

→ Like a bipedal human

→ stride length av. 87 cm

→ walking slowly (like us)

Photogrammetric studies of prints:

- Contour map of print features:

quantified similarities with modern prints

in similar soil, revealing evidence for

bipedalism in early Australopithicines.




• Other foot prints are more recent:

E.g., French caves (last Ice Age):

- Most footprints reveal people went

barefoot.

- Many prints represented children

- Footprint pattern revealed past

behaviour:

a. Children exploring depths of cave

(including poorly lit/dark areas).

b. One child was chasing a puppy/fox

c. Children had narrower and more

arched feet.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(b). Hands …



The Archaeology of People.3.3. Which hand did they use?

• Handprints, such as in Australian

rock shelters, etc., yield diverse data:

E.g., Left hand stencilled –implies

artist = right-handed.

158 stencils: 136 = left; 22 = right

→ hence most = prob. right-handed.

• Most cave art = best illuminated from

the left, favouring right-handed artists.

• Most figures are depicted right-handed

• Skeletal remains → stronger on right side.

• Cut marks & breaks reveal other info.:

E.g., Right-handed warriors generally

receive wounds on left side

E.g., Teeth wear marks may reveal wear

from using teeth & right hand.

(working on something using teeth)



The Archaeology of People.• Tools:

• Heavier wear on one side may

indicate greater right-handed use:

E.g., wooden spoons.

• Rope spiralling to the right reveals

manufacturer = right-handed.

• Stone tool produced extracting flakes

moving core clockwise:

= right-handed use.

• 56% right-handed production of flakes

• 57% right-oriented flake production

elsewhere.

• 90% modern humans = right-handed.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(c). Speech …




3.4. When did speech develop?

• The brain’s left side controls speech

& survives indirectly via skulls.

• Brain endocasts = latex rubber casts

from brain cavities, enabling studies

of the brain’s outer surface & cranial

capacity:

H. habilus brain capacity 752-775 cc

Australopithicus capacity 582 cc

• Speech center = bump on left side

Often appears in traces in endocast:

→ H. habilus / Australopithicus may

have had speech capabilities(?)

• Same area governs movement-dexterity

- Perhaps = affects symmetry in tools:

(Acheulian hand axe → to more tools)

in-turn suggesting cognitive abilities(?)




• This link between speech and

technological capabilities is

debated.

• Molecular genetics is now assisting

in assessing speech capabilities:

E.g., FOXP2 gene located in humans

and associated with facial & mouth

motions.

This gene may exhibit a preferential

mutation dating from 100,000+ BP,

suggesting speech capabilities

emerged further in the past.



The Archaeology of People.3.4.a. Reconstructing the vocal tract.

• The throat’s vocal tract enables further

assessments on speech capabilities.

- Adult Neanderthal throats resemble

modern infants, but may lack modern

pharnyx

→ restricted range of vowel sounds.

- The evidence is disputed!

- The shape of the skull’s base enables

a reverse view of the upper throat:

a. Mammals & human infants = flat skull

base.

b. Adult humans:

Have a curved skull base & low larynx

→ large pharynx with a greater range

of sound.




• Australopithicus:

- Flat skull base & small pharynx

- Slightly better than apes

- Probably unable to use vowels

• Homo Erectus: 1.6 mill.–300,000 BP

- Curved skull base with descending

larynx.

• Homo sapiens – Neanderthalensis:

- Probably had a limited vocal range

- But found human hyoid for 60,000 BP

(from larynx) suggesting language

capabilities.

• Hypoglossal canal perforated at skull

base in 400,000 BP→ suggesting

human speech capabilities in late

Homo erectus.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(d). Other types of behaviour



The Archaeology of People.3.5. Identifying other kinds of

behavior:

a. Use of teeth.

TOOLS:

• Evidence for mouths being used

to hold & cut items:

Chipping enamel & microfractures.

CLEANING:

• “Toothpick” cleaning marks seen

in teeth of H. erectus, H. habilus, and

Neanderthalers.

• AD 16th cent.: King Christian III of

Denmark used cloth & abrasive powder

to clean his teeth (traces left).



The Archaeology of People.3.5.b. Use of hands & fingers.

• Skeletal remains indicate manual

dexterity & labour.

• Humans have a broader head

on the first thumb bone (metacarpal)

• Homo erectus are similar

• Australopithicus afarensis have a

minimal feature on their thumb bone.

i.e., limited tool use.

• Neanderthals are like modern

humans regarding this feature and

tool use.



The Archaeology of People.3.5.c. Stresses on the skeleton.

• Repetitive actions/work affect

skeletal structure & remains:

Squatting: flattening thigh bone ends

• High % in Neanderthals.

Load carrying: affecting lower spine

• New Zealand: both genders

Elsewhere: mostly males

Neolithic Orkney: mostly females

• Cranial depression across skull top

& more emphasis on neck muscle

attachments: head strap carrying load

Grinding grain: foot bones reveal …

• traces of intensive kneeling & pushing

with toes (during grinding grain).

Hunting: muscle injuries from intensive

use of bows, spears, and running (feet).

Tell Tebilla: Dyn.25-26 burials in

mastaba tombs (SW side of mound).

Complementary evidence for stresses upon the spine and a

stronger left upper arm from frequent lifting of heavy items.

Giza, Dyn.4: workers’ burials.

• Spines often reveal stress (labor)

• Medical care:

- Setting broken bones; successful

leg amputation; brain surgery.

• Frequent bone fractures (arms-legs)

Many flexed; head → North; face → East




3.5.d. Sexual behavior & childbirth.

• Pottery models & depictions may

reveal cultural preferences:

E.g., Moche pottery AD 200-700

displaying sexual behavior, etc.

FEMALE

ASSOCIATIONS

Bes

Birthing box: 2 week seclusion

Birthing boxes

Taweret

Protector of women

during childbirth

Birthing

bricksDendera

Temple

Anc. Egyptian, Old Kingdom statuary: Implying

emotional bonds, feelings, etc. between individuals

ANCIENT EGYPT, New Kingdom genre of Love Songs (Poems)

• Several manuscripts yield collections of what is now loosely called love poems

• The original works were entitled “sayings” or “songs,” and they appear to be

the end product of careful, literary composition.

Cairo Vase 1266-25218 from Deir el-Medineh

“My sister’s love is on yonder side,

The river is between our bodies;

The waters are mighty at [flood]-time,

A crocodile waits in the shallows.

I enter the water and brave the waves,

My heart is strong on the deep;

The crocodile seems like a mouse to me,

The flood as land to my feet.

It is her love that gives me strength,

It makes a water-spell for me;

I gaze at my heart’s desire,

As she stands facing me!”

See p.193 in M. Lichtheim, 1976.

Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.2.

→ “sister” = girlfriend in this context

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(4). Disease, deformity

and death:

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(4). Disease, deformity, death:

(a). Intro + palaeopathology




4.1. Disease, deformity & death.

• Regarding past populations,

archaeologists also assess:

a. Quality of life

b. Health

c. Inherited variations

d. Causes of death

e. Etc.

Many human skeletal remains

reveal few obvious traces of the

causes of death.

• Paleopathology examines

ancient diseases and aids in

assessing suffering in life:

= Forensic archaeology.

Iceman

(Utzi)

killed

by an

arrow in

the alps

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(b). Soft tissue evidence




4.2. Evidence in soft tissue.

• Soft tissue is normally required to

assess ancient infectious diseases.

Surface tissues:

E.g., Eczema; slit throats (murder/ex.)

Inner tissue:

Xeroradiography: electrostatic image of

body with excellent definition (mummies).

Computerized axial tomography

(CAT/CT): Cross-section views of body.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI):

Body cross section views (need water)

Hard to use in desiccated mummies.

Fiber-optic endoscope:

View body internally

Analytical electron microscopy:

Assessing tissue samples.




Skin impressions:

• Footprints

• Handprints

• Hand stencils:

E.g., reveal probable missing

fingers, etc. But, could it be

sign language?

• Fingerprints:

E.g., Fired loess, clay items, etc.

→ identifying individual artisans.

• 2-dimensional & 3-dimensional

depictions:

E.g., Portraying diverse health

and disease.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(c). Parasites & viruses



The Archaeology of People.4.3. Parasites and viruses.

(a) Soft tissue:

• Often yields parasites (esp. in guts)

Egyptian mummies:

- Amoebic dysentry; bilharzia

Pre-Columbian mummies:

- Whipworm & roundworm eggs

Grauballe Man (Denmark):

- Whipworm Trichuris eggs (stomach ache)

(b) Ancient human feces:

• Usually have parasite eggs

Peruvian feces (6000 BC):

- Tapeworm eggs (from raw sea fish)

Nevada feces:

- Lacked parasite eggs

Other feces (Israel; Coloradi; Peru):

- Pinworm, thorny-headed worm,

tapeworm, ticks, mites, lice, etc.Mummified dog’s ear infested with ticks

http://parasitophilia.blogspot.com/2013/09/ancient-parasites-of-puppies-in-egypt.html

17th cent. Korean mummy with liver

parasites

https://article.wn.com/view/2017/08/28/Ancient_Mummy_Has_Oldest_Known_Case_Of_Liver_Parasites/

http://www.iceman.it/en/the-mummy/

whipworm

http://parasitophilia.blogspot.com/2013/09/ancient-parasites-of-puppies-in-egypt.html

https://article.wn.com/view/2017/08/28/Ancient_Mummy_Has_Oldest_Known_Case_Of_Liver_Parasites/

http://www.iceman.it/en/the-mummy/



The Archaeology of People.4.3. Parasites and viruses.

(a) Soft tissue:

• Often yields parasites (esp. in guts)

Egyptian mummies:

- Amoebic dysentry; bilharzia

Pre-Columbian mummies:

- Whipworm & roundworm eggs

Grauballe Man (Denmark):

- Whipworm Trichuris eggs (stomach ache)

(b) Ancient human feces:

• Usually have parasite eggs

Peruvian feces (6000 BC):

- Tapeworm eggs (from raw sea fish)

Nevada feces:

- Lacked parasite eggs

Other feces (Israel; Coloradi; Peru):

- Pinworm, thorny-headed worm,

tapeworm, ticks, mites, lice, etc.

Intestinal worms



The Archaeology of People.(c) Medical conditions (parasites):

Chagas disease:

- Chilean mummies (AD 475-600)

→ inflamed & enlarged heart & gut

Scabs & viruses (in soft tissue):

- Egy. pyramid poss. yielded anthrax

spores (potential danger!)

- Permafrost preserves diseases

(d) Genetics:

- DNA yields some traces of diseases:

Smallpox & polio (caused by viruses):

(a virus = simply DNA, or similar RNA,

within protein).

Tuberculosis:

- Peruvian mummy (AD 1100), revealed

tuberculosis = not introduced by

Europeans.https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/viruses-sleeping-mummies-

could-ancient-corpses-lead-modern-epidemics-009234

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/viruses-sleeping-mummies-could-ancient-corpses-lead-modern-epidemics-009234

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/viruses-sleeping-mummies-could-ancient-corpses-lead-modern-epidemics-009234



The Archaeology of People.(c) Medical conditions (parasites):

Chagas disease:

- Chilean mummies (AD 475-600)

→ inflamed & enlarged heart & gut

Scabs & viruses (in soft tissue):

- Egy. pyramid poss. yielded anthrax

spores (potential danger!)

- Permafrost preserves diseases

(d) Genetics:

- DNA yields some traces of diseases:

Smallpox & polio (caused by viruses):

(a virus = simply DNA, or similar RNA,

within protein).

Tuberculosis:

- Peruvian mummy (AD 1100), revealed

tuberculosis = not introduced by

Europeans.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2006/august/penn-researchers-determine-str

https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-73562000000100010

Pre-Columboian

Mummy: 900 AD

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2006/august/penn-researchers-determine-str

https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-73562000000100010

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(d). Skeletal evidence …




4.4. Skeletal evidence for deformity.

• Skeletal remains are more common

• Bone surfaces are affected by

a. Violence / accidents

b. Disease / congenital deformity.

a. Violent damage.

• Normally simple observation reveals

cause of death: Arrow, ballista bolt,

club, hatchet, etc.

• Diff. population types may experience

diverse hazards: H-G vs. farmers.

• Note: Assess post-burial damages, i.e.,

physical/chemical changes in soil.

• Shaping of skull & other alterations:

- Melanesian-Australian skulls shaped

- Ethiopia: H. erectus skull scalped

- Shanidar Cave Neanderthal: blow to skull




4.4.b. Identifying disease from

human bone.

• Diseases cause erosion, growths, &

altered structure in bone.

Evidence:

- Leprosy: Medieval Denmark; Israel

- Cancers: Neanderthal leg bones

- Polio: Body 4000 BP (UAE)

- Diseases: gallbladder / kidney stones

- Deformity: Foetus in Tut’s tomb had

Sprengel’s deformity.

- Dwarfism: congenital birth defect

AL (Paleo-Indians); Italy (10th mill. BC)

- Spina bifida occulta: congenital defects

Roman period examples

- Arthritis (osteoarthritis):

- Ancient Art:

Cleft forehead in figurines: spina bifida?

Seneb the “dwarf”:A Dyn.6 important Egyptian official

• He suffered the rare condition of

achondroplasia.

• = gene mutation inhibiting the growth

of cartilage (Filer, 1995. Disease)




Diseases in bone (continued):

X-ray analysis:

a. Harris lines:

- Arrested growth lines, esp. in shins

- Interrupted growth in childhood/adl.

via malnutrition or illness.

- High % may reveal widespread past

subsistence problems, etc.

b. Beau’s lines:

- Arrested growth lines on fingernails &

toenails

- Also reveals slowed growth by

malnutrition or illness.

See info box on page 452 textbook:

AD 1475 burials in Greenland

Cold site with perfect preservation

Diverse diseases, etc. in bodies




4.4.c. Lead poisoning.

• Past toxic substances, such as

lead, have also caused illness

and death.

Roman period England:

• High % of lead in bones at

Poundbury (via diet).

AD 1845 expedition to NW

(Canada):

• Very high % of lead poisoning

from lead-soldered food tins,

glazed pottery, lead foil lining.

United States 17th-19th cent. AD:

• Various lead glazes on ceramics,

etc., → lead absorbed via food

→ lead poisoning.

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(e). Evidence from teeth




4.5. Teeth.

• Food affects the condition of

teeth, directly & indirectly.

a. Heavy wear and decay:

Ramesses II (12th cent. BC):

• Heavy wear & decay from

sand grains, etc., in food.

b. Caries and lesions:

• Consumed sugar → cavities

• Sometimes healthy teeth are

removed for other reasons:

E.g., Ritual, etc., removal of

specific incisors & molars:

c. Dentistry:

8000 BP Pakistan: teeth drilled

2000 BP Nabataean: filling in tooth

6th-4th cent BC Phoenician false teeth

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(f). Medical data …



The Archaeology of People.4.6. Medical knowledge.

Dentistry: Egy. & Roman texts note

wiring to retain false teeth, etc.

Trepanation: removing pressure on

brain (migraines; epilepsy; etc.).

8000-7000+ BP (Andes especially).

Splints for broken bones:

3rd millennium BC Egypt

Artificial toes: Ancient Egypt

Removal of stillborn infant:

4th cent. AD burial (cemetery in UK)

Amputation: 2nd cent AD body (Rome)

Surgical equipment:

Pompeii; Roman shipwreck; Peru AD

450-750; Mary Rose wreck AD 1600s

Hospital: 11th cent AD Buddhist clinic

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(5). Human diet & health:

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(a). Assessing nutrition.




5.1. Assessing nutrition.

• Nutrition quantifies the

effectiveness of diet

in supporting humans

in diverse environments

& social settings (POWs).

• Some past populations

were well-nourished:

E.g., 1500-100 BC Thailand.

• Other populations and

population segments

were poorly nourished.

Founded by Amenhotep I?

Thutmose I stamped bricks in wall

Early Dynasty 18Dyns.18-20: Deir el-Medineh.

• Dyn.18: “Great work site”

• Dyn.19+ “The tomb”

Town: walled village of 68 houses

Houses: 5-6 rooms (2 main rooms)

Av. 72 sq. m. (range: 40 – 120 sq. m.)

Wages for a simple craftsman:

• Daily ration paid monthly:

- 5 kg. wheat (bread); 1.9 kg. barley (beer)

• Regular supply:

- Water, fish, vegetables, fruit, pottery,

and fuel for the hearth.

• Occasional supplies during year:

- Certain types of bread & cakes

- Meat, honey, and oil

• Supplementary income:

- Private commissions

Other signs of wealth:

- Owning servants, fields, animals, and

other buildings outside the village.

- Dyn.19+ these privileges → rare!

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(b). Assessing malnutrition.




5.2. Malnutrition.

• Malnutrition affects body: Harris lines.

Teeth:

Poorly mineralized dentine (lacking

in milk, fish, oil, animal fats)

Abraded: sand & grit in food.

Palate & gum conditions:

Scurvy = a lack of vitamin C

E.g., Sailors’ diet (lacking fresh food)

Body size & condition:

Herculaneum: Flatter leg bones in

adults from malnutrition (less protein).

Textual-pictorial record:

Su Wen: 3rd millennium BC text noting

what = apparently a vitamin B deficiency

Strabo also discusses deficient diet (V-B)

Egy. art portrays famine victims Dyn.5

“He has never settled in one place,

but plagued by want, he wanders the desert on foot,

He has been fighting ever since the time of Horus,

He neither conquers, nor can he be conquered,

He does not announce the day of fighting,

But is like a thief whom society has expelled.”

BEDU:

Late Old Kingdom-First Intermediate Period views about Bedouin:

(Dyns. 6-10: ca. 2200 – 2040 BC)

Typically

very thin

Chapter 11:

Who were they?




(c). Rise of agriculture

(and dietary changes).




5.2. Comparing diets:

The rise of agriculture.

a. Chemical analysis:

• Atomic absorption spectroscopy

indicates elements in bone:

Strontium, zinc, calcium, sodium,

• Can compare genders, groups,

etc., for dietary differences:

Middle Woodland H-G (AD 400):

- Males & females: equal nutrition

Late Woodland farmers (AD 1200)

- Males: less strontium & calcium, &

more zinc (= more animal protein)

- Females: more maize in diet.




• Maize diet & agriculture

(versus Hunter-gatherers):

- Greater population densities

- More social interactions

- More diseases (via bones)

- Deficiency in iron (in diet)

- Nutritional stress & dental

defects evident.

- More chronic stress

- Women affected more than men

i.e., diet in agricultural society.

- Males still hunting & fishing.

• Hunter-gatherers (vs. agricult):

- More equality in health

- More joint diseases from stress

in hunting

- Larger faces & jaws (= protein)

- Females have less dental decay

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(6). Population studies:




6. Population studies.

• Demographic archaeology:

- Assessing larger groups &

populations.

- Culture change.

• Paleodemography:

- Focus on skeletal remains for

fertility & mortality rates.

- Studying population structure

- Life expectancy for both genders

- Assessing disease, malnutrition,

gender, age, etc.

- Reconstructing population size

& density is much trickier!




• Paleodemography (cont.):

- Two approaches:

a. Assessing settlement data (per

generation)

- Group/site size, roofed area,

site volume, dwelling quantity, etc.

b. Environmental resources &

potential for various population

types per period / context:

i.e., = “carrying capacity”

- Many obstacles:

a. Longevity of dwellings

b. Contemporaneity of dwellings

c. Population within dwellings

d. Fluctuation of household size

e. Etc.




Household size calculations:

a. R. Naroll approach:

-1 person per 10% floor area (sq.m)

b. Pueblo population:

-1/3 floor area

c. Cook & Heizer:

-25 sq. ft (2.325 sq.m) for 1st 6 people

100 sq. ft. (9.3 sq.m) per add. Person

Neolithic longhouse:

Naroll eq.: 117 persons in 10 houses

Ethnographic evidence: family/hearth

→ 1 family per 4/5 m of house length

→ 200 people in 10 houses

Casselberg: N. American ethnography

1/6 floor area → 192 persons for 10

Long houses (= getting more accurate)

Middle Kingdom Lahun: ca.1895+ BCE

• Tracking changes in household sizes over

time through papyrus documents in town.

• Fluctuations in members within household.

Eastern Lahun: Mid-sized housingHousing measuring 135 sq. m.

2nd largest non-mansion dwelling.

• The 2nd largest non-mansion

dwellings lay in the eastern part

of Lahun (largest = in W. sector).

Layout:

1. Small side-room (water jars?)

2. Hallway to interior central room

(reception/living room?)

3. Large side room (living room?)

4. Central room (reception?)

5. Backrooms: bedrooms, storage,

bathroom?

- Some houses yielded legal

documents: e.g., House of Wah.

-His will gives 4 Asiatic servants to

his young wife to give to their

child(ren) as she sees fit:

= two Asiatic adult women and

two Asiatic girls → household 7+

135 sq.

metres

Parallel-sized

house in the

Western quarter

One rock-cut cellar

with wooden trap

door still in place




Late 18th/19th cent. AD New Zealand:

- Ethnographic data on Maori nuclear

families: 1 household per 2 store pits

= 6 adults per 2 store pits

36 pits →18 households →108 persons

Kalahari Desert & Aust. aborigines:

- 25 persons on average per H-G band

- Band size varies per season over time

Larger areas/populations:

- Greece in 431 BC: 315,000 population

- Greece in 323 BC: 258,000 population

- Anc. Rome at maximum(?) extent:

450,000 population

- World populations:

a. Paleolithic-Mesolithic 5-20 million

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(7). Diversity & evolution:




7.1. Diversity & evolution.

• Studying origins & distribution

of human population using

skeletal remains.

7.2. Studying genes:

Our past within ourselves.

• Past population dispersal can

be studied via living population

genes: e.g., modern indigenous

North Americans.

• Some comparison with ancient

groups: e.g., ancient DNA from

brains preserved in Florida swamps

- 9000 BC Kennewick Man different

from modern indigenous Americans




Genetics & migrations:

• Polynesians, Melanesians

and SE Asians display

same DNA mutations:

→ Refutes

South American

origin theory

for Polynesians.

Mitochondrial DNA

aids theories of

proto-Polynesian

migration route from

Melanesian group.




• Genetic evidence re-affirms

Africa as ultimate ancestor of ALL

modern humans.

Note: 8 different modern populations

with similar mutations:

E.g., Human chromosome:

a. Closest parallels = between

adjacent groups

b. African sample = different

from non-African groups.

E.g., Other genes → similar

pattern:

a. Mitochondrial DNA inherited

only via mother (female line)

b. Can study female lineages &

movements over time.



The Archaeology of People.• “Eve” theory:

- Cann et. al. examined mtDNA

(mitochondrial DNA) for female

ancestors.

- Suggested mutation rate 2%-4%

each million years

- Claimed modern global population

descended from 1 female (“Eve”)

ca. 200,000 BP

- They stress there was a preceding

mother & other contemporary

females/populations contributing

to DNA

i.e., “Eve” appears in all modern

DNA; others = lost.

Note: Only 14% of French population

from AD 1789 have living descendants

(Y-chrom. → common male ancestor)




Arguments against “Eve” theory:

Major flaws in “Eve” theory:

- Inappropriate statistical tests and

sampling

- Biased in sampling to African roots

in modern population sampled from

each of 8 groups (n = 147)

- Results influenced by sequence of

data entry

- Other input sequences produced

many variants including non-African

origins.

Multi-regional hypothesis:

- Uses mostly fossils & artifact

evidence

- Promotes that after leaving Africa,

H. erectus evolved separately

elsewhere across the Old World.




Balance:

- Mitochondrial DNA and

Y-chromosome studies suggest

an “Out-of-Africa” origin for

modern humans.

- Research reveals more information

on movements from Africa and a

spread across the globe.

- Living population DNA studies

are also helping studies on the

origins of modern humans

- Past DNA is becoming more

important.



The Archaeology of People.Neanderthals:

- Mitochondrial DNA extracted

from Neanderthal samples has

been compared with human

DNA sequences

→ revealed divergence between

humans & Neanderthals around

690,000 - 550,000 BP (earlier!)

→ Hence, Neanderthals are more

remote and not as well-connected

Human mtDNA divergences occur

Ca. 150,000 – 120,000 BP,

supporting “out-of-Africa” theory

for subsequent evolution of

modern humans.

Note: our genes contain a record

of our history.

Renfrew and Bahn

2016 (7th. Ed.)

Chapter 11:

Who were they?



(8). Questions of identity:




8. Questions of identity.

• Past peoples are studied on

many levels:

- Individuals vs. groups

- Origins

- Etc.

BUT, also = more confusion

now over haplogroups (& race)

Language groupings normally

Match genetic groupings

See Box 462-3 in textbook

NAGPRA: North

American Graves &

Property Repat. Act:

Body of a man found

in Washington state.

Indigenous Indians

say he is Native

American

Osteologists say he

= white man 1840s

→ Major legal battle

(9).

SUMMARY:



The Archaeology of People.9. Summary.

• The people who produced the material culture remains

are equally as important a research topic → phys. Anthr.

• Phys. remains yield much data: age, sex, height, weight,

appearance, inter-relationships, abilities in walking,

talking, and being left-/right-handed, stresses, trauma,

disease, & past nutrition levels from individual → groups.

“Bring out your dead!”



The Archaeology of People.9. Summary (cont. …).

• Molecular genetics also enables investigations within the

body, using DNA from modern subjects to interpret the

past (similar to ethnoarchaeology): i.e., genetic history.

• Now increasing DNA = available from human remains →

augmenting study & understanding of human populations

& their histories.

“Bring out your dead!”

IDENTIFYING ETHNICITY

IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RECORD:

(10). Case Study:Ancient Egypt & Northern Sudan”

Dyns. late 13 – 17: Ca.1650–1550 BC

Kushite culture:

Enemy to the South: The Kingdom of Kerma.

Ca. 2,400 -1,550 BC

2IP → taking over Lower Nubia

C-Group pottery.

C-Group jewellery.

Lower Nubia: C-Group.

Dynasties 6-17 (2,345-1,600 BC)

• Cultivation and herding.

• Co-existed fairly peacefully with

Egyptians; often living near forts.

• No significant cultural interaction

with Egypt.

• Slow cultural development →

better housing, graves, prosperity.

Askut

Lower Nubia: C-Group. Dynasties 6-17 (2,345-1,600 BC)

• Cultivation and herding.

Buhen

Lower Nubia: 2nd Cataract.

Askut (on island in Nile).

• Placed on an island in the Nile.

• Part of a chain of forts securing

the Second Cataract region.

• Laid out to fit the topography

of the island.

• Temple

• Commandant’s housing

• Granaries and housing

• Industrial areas

ASKUT

ASKUT:

Time-span:

• Dyns.12 – 20.

Material culture:

• Mostly Egyptian items

Some Nubian pottery, jewelry, etc.

Changing communities:

• MK garrison:

- Mosty grain supply depot

- Secondarily gold ore proc.

• Late MK-SIP (Kushite) settlement:

- Troops replaced by Egy. &

Nubian settlers (c. 1800 BC)

- granaries → housing

• NK fort & settlement.

Culturally sensitive aspects

of material culture assemblages:

1. Tools

= least likely item to reveal

ethnic identities.

2. Jewellery

= reflects both individual &

group identities.

→ excellent for assessing

Nubian influence and/or presence

3. Foodways

= best means to identify

ethnic identity (public → private)

a. cooking from cooking pots:

b. food service from plates & bowls

c. storage from small & large jars

abandoned

chapel

House

Workshops. etc.

MIDDLE KINGDOM S.I.P. – NEW KINGDOM

Grinding stones, etc.

Fishing tools: net weights

Bone tools

Stone tools

Metal tools

Egyptian tools: grain proc., net weights, metal tools,

Generic – Nubian(?) tools:

2 serpentine ground stone axes (common in Nubian graves).

Copper tools increase

Stone tools decrease

Changes in Egyptian tool industry → copper dominates

MK & NK Egyptian jewelry MK-SIP, NK Nubian jewelry

Egyptian & Nubian

jewelry blanksASKUT:

MK – SIP – NK:

• Nubian jewelry =

produced on-site

= Nubians within

settlement!

• Nubian jewelry

increases over time.

• Egyptian jewelry

decreases over time.

• Nubians → significant

post-MK settlement!

Distribution of Egyptian & Nubian jewelry over time.

Middle – New Kingdom Egyptian cosmetic equipment

Clay sealings reflect Egyptian state

administration.

MK = Dominant state control!

Egypt > aloof from C-Group

SIP = No state control

→ Nubian domination!

NK = minimal state influence

- Nubian presence significant

Open forms (access) Processing (cooking) Closed forms (storage)

Service: 4% Nubian pottery = minor influence

Cooking: 14% Nubian pottery = significant influence

Storage: 10% Nubian pottery = significant & unexpected!

4% 14% 10%

Residue analysis -Nubian & Egyptian cooking pots.

→ distinct differences in

fatty acid profiles for

Egyptian & Nubian pots.

= Favours presence of

Nubian foodways at Askut.

Egyptian cooking pot residue:

- Fish (MK)

- Pigs(?)

- Chickens(?) (NK+)

- Beans

- Fauna: birds & pigs = rare!

Nubian cooking pot residue:

- Deer

- Cattle

- Fauna: cattle, sheep, goats.

Note: an increase over time in Nubian cooking pots →Nubian wives? (>Nubians)

Egyptian pottery always dominant; greater Nubian influence in S.I.P.

Nubian cooking pots dominated in all areas of the fort (highest in SE houses)

→ Nubians cooking food

Egyptian service pottery dominated consistently → Egyptian residents

Egyptian storage pottery dominated consistently → Egyptian residents

Overall, Egyptian pottery dominates the assemblage

Smith: suggests may = inter-marriage between Egyptians and Nubian women

NEW KINGDOM

Egyptian service vessels

decrease over time

Egyptian storage vessels

increase over time

% of various Egyptian pottery types MK → SIP → NK

Nubian cooking pots

Decrease → return.

Less Nubian cooking?

Nubian service vessels

Increase → return.

more Nubian consumption?

Nubian storage vessels

Increase → return

Period of no

Egyptian state

control

% of various Nubian pottery types MK → SIP → NK

Nubian versus Egyptian pottery distributions at Askut

MK:-Commandant(?) house Few Nubian cooking pots

More Nubian service vessels -Servants?

-Food prep. → storage area Few Nubian cooking pots

-Barracks → settlers More Nubian cooking pots -Wives?

SIP - NK:-Nubian influence increasing in food prep.: cooking pots -Inter-

decreasing in storage & service vessels. marriage?

NK:SE housing section: Many Nubian cooking pots -Wives?

Meryka elite house: Few N. cooking & service pots -Egyptians

(more Egyptian influence here).

Why = more Nubian cooking pots in NK?

→ implies . . . Significant change in foodways! -Cross-cultural

→ Does it reflect Nubian servants? relations &

Nubian wives? marriages

House of Meryka

House Shrine:

Household shrine of Meryka: Second Intermediate Period -- NK

MK – NK pottery from barracks’ shrine & household shrine.

New Kingdom

Household Cult:

Egyptian-style

Figurines:

• Stone & mud

• Incised and

punctuate design

• No evidence for

worship of state

deities

• = all at household

level.

• Household cult

lasts 300 years

• *MK; less SIP-NK

Household cult:

Nubian fertility figurines

• Near shrine of Meryka

• Especially female fig.

• Admixture of Nubian

& Egyptian beliefs.

• Most common in MK

• Declines SIP -- NK

Egyptian, Nubian, & generic

Votive offerings.

• 50% = model vessels (MK-NK)

• 33% = cattle figurines (*NK)

favoured by Nubians.

• Other items:

a. pig (?)

b. crocodiles (Sobek?)

c. Fish (?)

d. Bread loaves (?)

e. Bird

f. Model axe

anth.106 ppt. lecture-14: summary of & supplement to renfrew & bahn textbook, chp. 11: who...

Documents