The scientific investigations on the remains of the Tollund Man tells us a great deal about civilisation during the Iron Age. These investigations tell modern society about what they ate were they lived in rough conditions and what they did as well as their Religious beliefs. I am going to explore the discovery of the Tollund Man.
Two brothers Vigo and Emil Hojgaard from a small village in Denmark called Tollund, whilst searching for peat in a peat bog they uncovered the remains of the Tollund man in a sleeping position with a noose around his neck. He was discovered on the 6th of May 1950. His last meal was found to consist of hulled barley, linseed and oats followed by seeds from a variety of plants, he ate his last meal 12-24 hours prior to his death. In this discovery it showed that the people in the Iron Age lived a very different life to us now, because most of there meals consisted of plant seeds which we know no to be weeds, it also showed that people in the Iron Age were sacrificed for lamb.
The Tollund Man was found in a peat bog in Tollund, Denmark with majority of his meal found in his colon which means that his last meal had to have been consumed 12-24 hours prior to his death, this information was found by was Botanist Hans Helbaek who concluded that his last meal had consisted of seeds from no fewer that 29 plants, pearl barley, linseed and oats. This tells us that we have many options for food now but in the Iron Age had a good meal with the right nutrition amounts was scarce and the people then would eat anything they could get there hands on to eat this also tells us that the seeds from the plants are what we call weeds now and would not eat.
A Peat Bog is a type of wetland whose soft, spongy ground is composed largely of living and decaying sphagnum moss. Decayed composted moss is known as Peat. The peat bog was important in the iron age because it helped fuel their fire, so they were warm and able to cook, it was also used as a soil additive. This tells modern society that in the Iron Age having access was greatly sought after and relied on heavily as fuelling many important things that needed to be done and cooked
The Tollund Man died, because he was sacrificed for lamb, which meant he was hung on a rod with a noose on his neck. He was hung during a winters day or early spring. Shortly after being hung he was cut down, somebody then closed his eyes, placed him in a sleeping position then placed him in an old Bog where he would stay. The cause of the Tollund Man’s death was instantly known since he still had the noose around his neck that he died on, as well as having what was known in the Iron Age as a decent meal, which showed he was not starved and killed because of something he had done it was a sacrifice for lamb. This tells us that people who lived in the Iron Age had many different beliefs and like Religious and spiritual things like sacrificing people for lamb.
The discovery of the Tollund man by Viggo and Emil Hojgaard as well as this essay By Nevaeh Boys tells us a great deal about civilisation during the iron age.
Archaeology can be defined, as the ancient and recent human past thus, the study of human history and prehistory through material remains. Archaeology is a scientific research discipline that delves more into the history of humans, the things they produced, the materials they used, and the material things they discarded. Archaeology is a subfield of the study of all human culture. Archaeology can deal with the four million-year-old antiquated remains of our ancestors. Archaeology is also the ultimate discipline tasked with documenting, reconstructing, and understanding the ancient past as completely as possible, using the tools and theoretical approaches of as many disciplines as possible. Archaeology as a multidisciplinary comparative science has to do with how archaeology is used in balance with the other field of sciences or scientific techniques to research the things humans once produced, used, and discarded to reconstruct past behavior across space and time. Archaeology is termed a science because it also undertakes all the procedures of scientific methods. That’s to say, archaeology begins with the locating of the site and analysis of the site by reading more about it. Archaeology also gathers information for its research through the excavation of the sites to know more about what heshe already knows about the sites. After this, archaeologists analyze the artifact and features found to be able to interpret questions like when it was produced, how it was produced, and what it is used for. Moreover, this is what puts archaeology in a science field.
Archaeology is said to be a multidisciplinary comparative science because it uses additional brains from other several sciences before its research can be understood or critically analyzed. Thus, archaeology is at the center of socio-natural sciences. To understand the reason why archaeology is a multidisciplinary comparative science, let us analyze the various types of archaeology or the divest way archaeology can be studied with proof of experimentation of how archaeology operates simultaneously with the other fields of science in the essay below;
Bioarchaeology or Forensic archaeology
This is major research done by an archaeologist. We can briefly down to say biology archaeology (bioarchaeology) or forensic archaeology. As the name dictates for itself, bioarchaeology or forensic archaeology can literally be bridged into two separate fields of science that can independently stand on their own. Forensic science is a specialty or a field where scientists study living organisms including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, development, and evolution in the application of science in criminal or civil laws. Forensic scientist gets to collect, preserve and analyze scientific evidence during investigations. Forensic science is also a broader view of science itself. Forensic science can be defined as the use of scientific methods and processes for solving criminal-related issues.
Thus, we term archaeology as a multidisciplinary comparative science because, for someone to confidently call himself or herself a bioarchaeologist or forensic archaeologist, that person has to be knowledgeable enough about what goes into these two broad field of science before he or she can operate as a certified forensic archaeologist or a bioarchaeologist. That is to say, if you want to use archaeological methods, skills, knowledge, and field craft to recover skeletal remains for investigation whether it is to resolve issues relating to a medical problem or a legal problem, you do not rely on the knowledge gain from one aspect of science. Bioarchaeology or forensic archaeology is therefore the study of human remains from archaeological contexts and the investigation and resolution of medico-legal issues associated with the human remains discovered. Thus, the usage of forensic science and archaeology tells more about why archaeology is a multidisciplinary comparative science.
Zooarchaeology
Zooarchaeology or zoology archaeology is an archaeological practice that serves as a ‘hybrid’ or a share of this and a share of that’ discipline; combining the studies of archaeology and zoology which are the study of the past of human culture and the study of animals respectively. Zooarchaeology (or archaeo-zoology), also known as FAUNAL ANALYSIS is the study of the remains of animals from an archaeological site. Faunal are items left behind by animals when they die. These items include bones, shells, hair, scales, DNA, proteins, and hides.
Zoology itself is a branch of biology that studies the animal kingdom in general and how they interact with their ecosystems. Zoology and archaeology combine to do intensive research about the animal kingdom and their relation to the study of human culture from ancient times to modern times.
What makes archaeology a multidisciplinary comparative science is that to become a certified zooarchaeologist, your ideas on the study of animals and their relation with the environment only are not going to help you that much and you depend on your archaeological ideas only going to make sense. However, these fields of science are used simultaneously to achieve a proper result of zooarchaeology, and that’s what makes it a multidisciplinary comparative science.
Archaeobotany
This is also a hybrid discipline like the above that also combines botanical knowledge with archaeological skills, methods, knowledge, and techniques. Archaeology is termed a multidisciplinary comparative science because it mostly uses ideas of botany science simultaneously with that of an archaeological skill to produce a better result in archaeobotany. Thus, you only get to be a good archaeobotanist when you are equally good in the studies of plants, including flowering plants along with their growth, structure, evolution, and uses, and, the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical features. Archaeobotany can also be referred to as palaeoethnobotany. Archaeobotany focuses on the study of preserved plant evidence from archaeological sites and the interpretation and reconstruction of human-plant relationships.
In conclusion, we say archaeology is a multidisciplinary comparative science field because it uses archaeology simultaneously with the other major fields of science in its research to accomplish a well-defined result.
Archaeology, in general, can be considered a science and a branch of humanities. The definition of quotation to this broader group of sources indicates actually that archaeology attracts upon many specific disciplinary methods, methods, and questions to handle its central trouble perception of human lives through the find out about of material stay left from the past. Archaeology is seen as the aggregate of sciences which are applied in relation to each and every other. Archaeology possesses both elements of difficult science and self-discipline, particularly theories related to human behavior. Archaeology makes use of the scientific method to come to a conclusion of analysis or problems.
It is regarded as a multidisciplinary science because it has now reached almost every and every vicinity of the disciplines. Archaeology applies the utility and enhancement of scientific methods of archaeology materials. An ordinary illustration s the use of radiocarbon decay to supply a sturdy chronology enabling us to study the timing of one-of-a-kind cultures across the world. It depends on other scientific method like imaging to physical, chemical, and natural analysis. It moreover supplies a satisfactory discussion board for drawing close the date, geographic origins, manufacture, and use of the artifacts we locate amongst others.
Archaeology has moved in advance from a standalone science to a multidisciplinary approach, where archaeology entwined to different sciences, (Amman). This method helps to reconstruct and better appreciation of preceding civilizations and prerequisites that emerged and devoted decisions. Archaeology is basically multi-faceted. Archaeology students make use of laboratory-based physical, chemical, and organic analyses, in addition to the ones derived from art history, and other arts subjects. To some scholars, such as Lewis Binford, a leading American archaeologist, this discipline is sincerely a science, notwithstanding the overlap with art technique. The self-discipline consists of surveying, excavation, and the stop comparison of statistics gathered to cease up aware of most things in the past. In addition to analysis, archaeology relies upon cross-disciplinary. Archaeological search for penalties will in a doubt and advantageously find out scientific research.
However, the multidisciplinary technique, or comparative science approach, focuses or spends more time on gathering each archaeological file and topographical information. Biologists will generally or many times use archaeological research to back up their theories of evolution. Archaeology uses a scientific system upon which findings depend. Archaeological records are in contrast and contrasted numerically and archaeology excavation makes use of such strategies to evaluate the information and the means of each artifact and structure. In addition, it additionally entails the systematic series of files with an aim accompanied by using way of contrast according to the logical frameworks. This data, and the outcomes of analysis, are then, properly, widespread. In phrases of site, archaeology searches are in general carried out or undertaken in a laboratory-based totally room, or field, or find out about the room. Archaeologists analyze human prehistory and history. quite many unique sub-disciplines of archaeology have developed, along with maritime archaeology, feminist archaeology, and archaeoastronomy several distinct scientific techniques have been developed. It consists of the application of science to produce an evidenced foundation for building a record, and to verify artifacts, courting documents, detecting forgeries, and many more.
Furthermore, archaeologists create hypotheses, accumulate proof to take a seem to be at predictions made with the aid of this hypothesis, and ultimately structure theories supported via the usage of that evidence. It is more an observational science like astronomy or sure areas of zoology and botany than an experimental science like physics and chemistry.
To conclude, archaeology has been capable to help scientists through the archaeological approach and scientific method to find out things that remain that are silent. Archaeologists use the data they discover and combine it with what different scientists have discovered.
While the human race takes great pride in the progressive nature of each subsequent civilization, there exist objects from past civilizations that are hailed as marvels in the civilization process. While some of this objects gain their prominence primarily due to their old age, others are distinct due to their magnitude and the sheer artistry which led to their creation. The great pyramids of Egypt fall under the second category and these structures have continued to fascinate man as a result of the ingenuity with which they were created.
Explorers from Europe made their way to Egypt to witness this great architectural wonders and as far back as 1842, the Prusian explorer, Karl Richard Lepsius conducted expeditions to Egypt and set out to document the number of pyramids that the North African country boasted (Lacovara 30). Over the years, pyramids of Egypt have continued to fascinate modern man the great structures are indeed revered as one of the great wonders of the ancient world.
Owing to the great interest that pyramids elicit from man as well as the ancient cultural knowledge concerning ancient Egyptians that they give, it would be a worthwhile endeavor to carry out a study into these ancient structures. To this end, this paper shall set out to investigate the pyramids of Egypt with the aim of presenting an informative paper about the same.
Their present locations as well as their physical attributes shall be given. Some of the most plausible theories as to their construction shall also be mentioned. A look at the significance of the pyramids to the ancient Egyptian people shall also be made so as to enable us to have a better appreciation of these magnificent structures.
Egypt: Site of the Pyramids
Egypt is an African country that exists on the Northern part of the continent bordering the Mediterranean Sea (CIA). The country consists mostly of desert landscape with the exception of the Nile Valley which is very fertile and provides for most of the agricultural and water needs of the country.
While the presence of the Suez Canal (a waterway which serves as a link between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean) gives Egypt some amount of prominence due to its strategic geographical positioning, it is the pyramids that have made the country famous all over the world. Despite the fact that many other ancient civilizations built pyramids which served as temples or tombs, the pyramids of Egypt are by far the most magnificent and well renowned.
Fig. 1. The Map of Egypt from the Central Intelligence Agency World FactBook. Cia.gov: June. 24 2010. Web..
In the earlier years, the ancient pyramid sites were constantly attacked by treasure hunters who engaged in uncontrolled pillaging of the sites looting off invaluable ancient artifacts (Lacovara 30). Some of the previous Egyptians are also known to have turned the sites of pyramids into quarries to provide stones for building settlements.
However, as a result of the discovery of the great value that the pyramids had by both archaeologists and historians, there arose need to create means by which this sites could be safeguarded from destruction. The National Antiquities Service was therefore created to oversee archaeological works in the pyramids as a result of the great interest in Egypt’s pyramids and by extension its ancient past (Lecovara 30).
This led to the restoration of some of the greatest pyramid sites and the discovery of great treasures which are now found in Egyptian museums. This was not only a culturally motivated move but also an economic one since at present, Egypt’s pyramids attract hundreds of thousands of tourists into the country each year making a significant contribution to the country’s annual GDP.
The Development of Pyramids
Ancient Egyptian religion taught that earthly life was followed by an afterlife and the transition from the world of the living to that of the dead held a special place in Egyptian culture.
The preservation of the dead body of an important person was seen as mandatory least the spirit of the said person wonders off unsatisfied bringing great disaster to the living. For this reason the mummification process, which was aimed at preserving the body of the dead, as well as building of durable tombs was practiced by Egyptians (Moffet, Fazio and Wodehouse 123).
At the onset, dead pharaohs were buried in tombs known as Mastabas. These tombs were built of durable material unlike the houses that the Egyptians lived in which were made of reed, wood and other easily decomposable material. Physically, Mastabas were rectangular blocks made of baked clay and in later years, stones. It is these Mastabas that were enlarged to form a pyramid by stacking them one on top of each other.
The religious basis of the pyramids cannot be overstated and as Moffett, Fazio and Wodehouse document, “the pyramid, an upward-stepping form whose peak caught the first rays of morning light, was the emblem of the sun god as worshiped at Heliopolis” (123). Rosalie further notes that the Egyptian pyramids were meant to provide a comfortable afterlife for the deceased and they were therefore built of stone since they were meant to last for eternity (3).
The building of the Pyramids
Historians generally agree that construction of the pyramids were commissioned by the rules of the land (Pharaoh’s) in a time of great prosperity in Egypt. However, there exists a popular misconception that the Egyptian pyramids were build through the use of slave labor. This misconception is further reinforced by popular myths advanced which propose that the Jewish slaves who are known to have labored in Egypt under pharaoh’s rule constructed these huge structures.
Malek and Forman reveal that the construction workers of the pyramids were Egyptians who were not only loyal subjects to the pharaoh but also took great pride in their role in the building of these monumental structures (74). Archaeological findings around the pyramid sites also reinforce this claim since they reveal that the builders who made settlements near the construction sites were of native Egyptian origin.
Furthermore, the burial grounds situated near the pyramids reveal the tombs of actual builders which were constructed in true and proper Egyptian tradition. Ruiz declares that this is conclusive evidence that Egyptians formed the labor force in the pyramid construction since slaves were not given Egyptian burials even if they died in the country (217).
Imhotep (the chief architect of pharaoh Djoser who reigned from2630 – 2611 BC) is credited with designing the first pyramid (Moffett, Fazio and Wodehouse 125). In the construction of a Pyramid, the pyramids were not built as individual structures but rather as part of a massive complex.
However, the pyramids formed the centerpiece of the entire construction and where made of more durable material since they were intended to last forever. The pyramids which started off as a compilation of Mastabas were built to attain their present shape and mass and later finished by dressing them with limestone. The pyramids were generally made of limestone although some parts of the interior were made of black granite which was imported from neighboring lands (Malek and Forman 58).
One of the issues that continue to puzzle modern man is how the ancient Egyptians were able to constructs these huge pyramids without the aid of modern machinery such as cranes which would have been used to carry the huge stone blocks as they ascended up to the top of the pyramid.
While no record providing information as to how the planning, design and subsequent construction of the pyramids took place, there exist remains of ramps build from mud that offer some insight into how the construction process took place. Ruiz theorizes that a ramp would have led from ground level to the top of the first layer of stone and a second ramp would have led to the next level progressively (217).
Once the gigantic piles of stone had reached the apex, the workers worked their way down smoothing off the outer blocks as well as removing the ramps. Limestone was then used as finishing giving the pyramid a shiny finish which could be seen from miles away (Ruiz 217). However, most of the outer finishing was removed by future civilizations which used it as building material and hence the stony outlook that pyramids have at present.
Another Issue in relation to the construction of the pyramids is with regard to how the huge blocks of stones (averaging 2 tons in weight) used for the pyramid construction were transported from the quarries up to the site of the pyramids. This mystery is unraveled by Malek and Forman who propose that the pyramids were built in the seasons when the great Nile had flooded (74). This meant that the builders were able to transport building material and in particular the heavy stones by floating on the flooded river basin.
The Pyramids of Egypt
It is estimated that Egypt boasts of around 138 pyramids which are found at various locations in the country. These pyramids vary in size as well as in the degree to which they have deteriorated with time. The oldest pyramid is the Pyramid of Djoser which is located outside of Memphis.
This pyramid was designed by the architect Imhotep and it was the first monumental construction in stone made by the Egyptians (O’Donnell 125). This stepped pyramid rises to 197 feet above ground and has a 397 by 358 foot base. While it is not the most outstanding of the Egyptian pyramids, it is the oldest one and is said to have begun as a mastaba with the pyramid being build in several stages until it attained its present shape and mass.
Fig. 2. The Step Pyramid of Djoser from Baker, Rosalie and Baker Charles
Of all the pyramids constructed by the ancient Egyptians, the most majestic ones are those that are found in Giza. These three large pyramids of Giza were the work of three pharaohs; Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. The three pyramids are said to have been constructed between 2550BC and 2460BC.
The Greatest amongst these pyramids is the pyramid of Khufu who reigned 2551-2528BC. This pyramid covers a 755 by 755 foot base and it rises to an astonishing height of 481 feet at its apex (Moffett, Fazio and Wodehouse 143). For this reason, the Giza pyramid site is the most attractive one to tourists and was allegedly built at the time of highest prosperity by the pharaohs.
Fig. 3. The Three Pyramids at Giza. cap.nsw.edu: Web.
Cultural Significance of the Pyramids
On their construction, the pyramids were intended to last for eternity. For this reason, the most durable material of that time (stone) was utilized and great measures undertaken to make the structures as stable as was possible.
While the ancients may have been overambitious in their vision of an everlasting physical structure, their ingenuity has withstood the test of time with the oldest pyramid being estimated to have been in existence for the past 4600 years. These structures have offered great insights into the lives of this ancient civilization and the archaeological findings from these sites have added to our knowledge of ancient Egyptian culture.
One of the aspects of ancient Egypt which the pyramids offer insight into is that of the religious believes of the ancient Egyptian people. The knowledge of Egyptian religion is based on the papyrus scrolls that have been found in the tombs contained in pyramids. It is said that this religious material were placed with the dead to provide them with details of the next world and give them instructions on how to get there (Grant, Gorin and Flemin 190).
An exploration into the pyramids shows various wall paintings which reveal a lot about the ancient Egyptian’s beliefs. Grand, Gorin and Fleming demonstrate that by wall painting depicting people with faces of birds, one can infer that early Egyptian deities were zoomorphic who used animals to represent particular manifestations of gods (190).
The significance the pharaohs held in the Egyptian society can also be inferred from the pyramids. There exist prayers carved into the walls of pyramid chambers that make reference to stars and to the accent of pharaoh’s into the sky to be among them. Rosalie affirms that pyramids indeed were used for official religion and the pyramid temple played an important part in the burial of the king and thereafter became a site where the priesthood performed daily rituals so as to minister to the spirit of the dead king (131).
In addition to this, pyramids also played an important role in the lives of the living people. It was at the steps of the pyramids that divinations by priests and priestesses of the gods were made and the burial rituals of people were preceded over. Major ceremonies were also undertaken at the foot of the pyramids which were revered as religious icons.
Conclusion
This paper set out to give a detailed discussion of one of the world’s greatest archeological sites, the Egyptian pyramids. The paper began by providing a brief overview of the country Egypt so as to highlight the significance of the pyramids to the modern Egyptian people. The ancient practices and beliefs which led to the creation of the pyramids have also been discussed and the wonder of how such a great feat of architecture was achieved theorized.
While it has been noted that there do exist many theories as to how the pyramids were constructed, there is general agreement that this structures are truly a marvel of the ancient human civilization. The cultural value that the pyramids provide modern man with cannot be quantified for the pyramids acted as a sanctuary to a myriad of objects that offer us a glimpse into ancient civilization. Therefore, from the findings in these pyramids, modern man is able to understand and therefore better appreciate his predecessors.
Works Cited
Baker, Rosalie and Baker, Charles. Ancient Egyptians: People of the Pyramids. USA: Oxford University Press US, 2001.
Teotihuacan is a large archaeological site located in the Basin of Mexico, about 50 kilometers away from Mexico City. This archaeological site contains a number of attractive features including some of the largest pyramidal structures believed to have been constructed during the pre-Columbian Americas era (Middleton 2012, p. 260).
Other features found in the site include the residential complexes, well-preserved murals, and the Avenue of the Dead. Another interesting structure in the site is the thin orange pottery style that stretches all the way to Mesoamerica (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 56).
The site is said to have been built in 100 BC, but the establishment of the site continued until around 250 AD. Teotihuacan was considered the largest city in the pre-Colombian Americas era during the first half of the first millennium of this period. During this time, the city had a population of more than 125,000 people.
The big population made the site one of the largest cities of the world during the 1st millennium of the AD era (Middleton 2012, p. 261). This paper will outline the history and the features of Teotihuacan site that make it so important to archaeologists.
History of Teotihuacan
Teotihuacan is said to have begun around the first century AD as one of the new religious centers in the Mexican Highland. The city attained its peak in 450 AD when it became one of the largest and most populated centers in the world.
It was considered the center of a powerful culture whose influence could be felt in the entire region of Mesoamerica. During this time, the city covered a vast area of approximately 30 square kilometers with more than 250,000 residents (Middleton 2012, p. 272).
The name Teotihuacan is interpreted as a place where gods are created. It is a reflection of creation myths that were associated with the place (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 58).
The first people who built the site appear to have taken advantage of the geographical features of the Basin of Mexico. For instance, they promoted the formation of channels to allow for easier transportation of food from farms around the area using canoe traffic (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 59).
Teotihuacan as the Place of the Gods
The name Teotihuacan means place where men turned into gods. This aspect has made the place an interesting site for archaeological works. It is regarded as the most important city that was built in the pre-Hispanic times in the continent of America. The city was considered an important political, cultural, and religious center in the region (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 62).
As result of the archaeological wonders found in the site, Teotihuacan was named s World Heritage in 1987 by UNESCO. Some of the wonderful archaeological features found in the site include the Pyramid of Moon and the Pyramid of the Sun.
The two pyramids are connected to each other by the Avenue of the Dead. Other features in the area are the Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the attractive Palace of the Jaguars (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 63).
The site presents more than four hundred archaeological pieces that form the complete vision of the Teotihuacan culture.
The archaeological features include stone sculptures, mural paintings, fine potter recipients, pre-Hispanic jewellery, ritual masks, figurines showing the images of Mesoamerican mythology important animals such as snakes, and statuettes obtained from obsidian (Middleton 2012, p. 280).
Political, Economic, and Religious Activities in the Site
The site, the place where gods were created, is associated with different religious activities. The religious hierarchy played a major role in the area. The leaders set designated places for worship. People offered their prayers from large squares to small house courtyards.
The main deities found in the area were Tialoc and Quetzalcoatl. Tialoc presided over rains and fertility while Quetzalcoatl was the plumed serpent. Other deities were usually located in houses in form of pottery sculptures and they included the Xipe Totec, fire god, and Huehueteotl (Carrsco 2009, p. 633).
The Teotihuacan society is said to have been divided into four categories; these categories included the dominant class, warriors, merchants, and the ordinary people. The dominant class was entitled to a lot of privileges and its members controlled education and the justice system in the area.
The warriors were accountable for the security of the area and they trained in handling various weapons. The craftsmen and merchants ruled the economy of the area while the construction works and farming were left to the ordinary people (Carrsco 2009, p. 633).
The palaces found in the site were constructed in such a way that they suited different family needs. The rooms in the palaces were grouped around courtyards and were of different sizes.
In each room, there was a family with retinues of craftsmen, merchants, and guards. The rooms in the palaces were assigned to people according to their social status. People who were considered high-class were given better rooms than ordinary people (Carrsco 2009, p. 634).
Teotihuacan Culture and Ethnicity
Most of the archaeological studies that have been carried out in the site suggest that Teotihuacan was a multi-ethnic region. The distinct quarters found in the site were occupied by Mixtec, Zapotec, Maya, Otomi, and Nahua people. It is believed that the Totonacs were the founders of the site since they were the first group to settle in the area and that the establishment was continued by the Aztecs (Middleton 2012, p. 283).
The most important ethnic group in Teotihuacan, according to the archaeological findings, was the Mixe-Zoquean and Totonacan linguistic affiliations. The spread of Mixe-Zoquean and Totonacan languages to other regions of Mesoamerica explains how strong the two groups were in the region (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 73).
However, some archeologists have maintained that the largest population group in Teotihuacan must have been the Otomi. The archaeologists say that the Otomi language was spoken in the Teotihuacan surroundings before and after the classic periods (Beezley & Kellogg 2011, p. 76).
The Collapse of Teotihuacan
The collapse of the archaeological site is attributed to a number of factors. Some people hold that the Teotihuacan collapsed in the 7th century as a result of invasion by assailants who sacked and burnt the entire area.
Other archeologists feel that the decline and the final disappearance of the Teotihuacan population in the 6th century came as a result of the lengthy droughts caused by the extreme climatic changes that took place in 535-536 AD (Middleton 2012, p. 299).
In conclusion, the Teotihuacan archaeological site is unique in its own way, given that it had a very big population and it was considered a place where gods were made. The population was divided into four distinctions ranging from the high class to the low class.
It is not clear what really caused the disappearance of Teotihuacan. The uniqueness and uncertainties surrounding the site make it extremely important for archaeological studies.
References
Beezley, WH & Kellogg, S 2011, ‘The gods depart: riddles of the rise, fall, and regeneration of Mesoamerican indigenous societies’, Journal of American History and Culture, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 56-71.
Carrsco, D 2009, ‘The Teotihuacan trinity: the sociopolitical structure of an ancient Mesoamerican city’, Journal of the Royal Anthological Institute, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 633-634.
Middleton, GD 2012, ‘Nothing lasts forever: environmental discourses on the collapse of past societies’, Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 257-307.
The Gesher Bent Ya’aqov is an interesting archeological site located in Israel. The site was discovered in the 1930s. Excavation of the site revealed that the site had been occupied for thousands of years and there was usage of fire (McManamon 2011).
The sediment layers at the site indicate that the occupants had used fire for thousands of years considering the burnt flints found in lower parts of the pollen diagram. This paper explores the site in detail to establish when the site was formed, the materials found by excavators and the implication to archeology and human activity.
Site location
The Gesher Bent Ya’aqov (GBT) lies in the Lake Hula region. The location is an archeological place in the northern Jordan Valley. The Jordan Valley is on the shores of prehistoric Lake Hula.
The location of the site entails thirty-four meters of lake deposits. The site is known to have been used periodically for more than a hundred thousand years by successive generations. More than 14 archeological deposits have been established to exist at the site (Grosman 2011).
Dates of the site
GBY is believed to have been occupied by Acheulians between 700,000 and 800,000 B.P. The pollen diagram indicates that there was human activity in the valley. The sediment part of GBY is dated using the Matuyama-Brunhes Boundary (MBB). This is the reverse to normal-polarity change.
This was observed at 20.2 meters beneath the uppermost layer (Goren-Inbar et al 2000). The date of the site according to researchers is in the lower Paleolithic period. Thermoluminescence dating method has been used to establish the actual dates of human activity at the site.
Methods for determination of the dates
The ancient usage of fire has been reconstructed at GBY. The presence of fire in the site is based on the reality that there is modification of lithic material by heat. One of the methods used to determine the dates of the site is supported by thermoluminescence (TL) techniques. TL is essential as a verifying method for microscopic detection of fire damage on flint micro-artifacts. At the GBY, there is evidence of fire alterations from the Early and early Middle Pleistocene (Ashkenazi 2010).
The dating was done through the analysis of layers of sediment deposits alongside the deposits of burnt hand tools at different layers. The miniature dimensions of the micro-artifacts when using the TL technique foil the subtraction of the outer surface. In this regard, TL signal may have been lightened by the disclosure to light when the site was being excavated.
The lightening of TL signal during the dating exercise by sunlight was observed to be found on fresh materials. However, in archeological materials, very limited problem was observed. This has been attributed to patination.
The relevance of the TL technique on burnt quartz is largely restricted by the aforementioned discovery limitations of the tools for infantile materials and the infiltration of ancient materials. The presence of adequately burnt fossils also make the TL an appropriate tool. In essence, the method allows archeologists to date the usage of fire throughout human evolution.
TL has been indicated by many archeologists to be valid in dating of quartz, burnt flint and sandstone among other materials. The relevance of TL includes Lower Paleolithic to Neolithic sites. However, the application of the method largely focuses on the Middle Paleolithic.
The focus on Middle Paleolithic is essential as it is beyond the C-dating technique. TL dating tool is founded on composition alteration and cracks to the rock pattern of sediments through radioactivity. The origin of the ubiquitous radiation is radioactive nuclides found in the immediate sediment and the material under observation itself. Secondary cosmic heat and fire is also a source of the radiations. Paledose is observed to accumulate in the materials in form of electrons in excited condition.
Some of the crystals are metastable hence stay for time adequate to permit dating application. The accumulation of crystals begins with the minerals being formed. In archeological application, the attention is on the period that has elapsed from the time there was human activity such as fire or an occasion associated with human activity such as sedimentation.
Formation of the site
GBY is located in the southern Levant. This location acted as the ‘continental bridge’ with the rest of the world. The ‘bridge’ was used by ancient population from Africa to travel to other parts of the world. The ancient population in the region occupied GBY conducted diverse activities. During the excavation of GBY, the archeologists found many items that were deposited by weather elements through transportation.
The formation of the layers found in the area is attributed to outstanding climatic conditions. When the water that was initially in the valley evaporated due to rise in temperature most of the flora and fauna died in successive generations. This led to the formation of layers that were composed of fossils.
The favorable weather conditions within the region considering that the area was swampy meant that aquatic animals reproduced since there were plenty of plants for consumption ensuring survival of most aquatic animals. The Jordan River provided fish for human population. Agricultural activities facilitated the survival of humans in the area supplemented by existence of animals that were hunted for food.
The lake conditions and marsh in the area is also associated with the formation of setting of the area sedimentary sequence. There is evidence of animal remains and other artifacts demonstrating that there was human activity that contributed to the formation of sedimentary layers inherent in the area. The unearthing of the site revealed a large variety of relic wood, seeds, agricultural crops and pollen (Zeist & Bottema 2009).
Who excavated
GBY was first dug out by Moshe Stekelis and Dorothy Garrod. The unearthing was conducted in the 1930s. Isaac Gilead later conducted another excavation thirty years later. Under the express of Naama Goren-Inbar (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archeology), further unearthing was conducted between 1990 and 1997.
What was found
Among the most important items found included wood remains. Palynological information indicates that there were pollen deposits that developed into trees (Baruch 1991). In the pollen records, it has been indicated that pine possibly did not initially grow in the region. Most kinds of pollen found in the region were established to have been deposited from hundreds of kilometers through long-distance transportation.
The pollen and wood facts indicate that Quercus ithaburensis-Pistacia atlantica forest was found in the valley and not in the lagoon and swamp. The combination was also found on lower sides of the hills edging the valley on both sides. In addition to the Tabor oak Atlantic terebinth, evergreen Kermesoak was an essential part of the woods. The wild olive was also found in the valley. The hint of open woods with significantly spaced trees is supported by the fact that there was high non-arboreal pollen occurrence.
This means that the area experienced and continues to experience reasonably dry weather conditions. It is indicated in pollen records that a variety of riverbank woods and bushes including Fraxinus and elm grew in the GBY. In the upper part of the pollen diagram, it is indicated that cedar might have reached the Hula area (Picard 1952). This is an indication of increasing moisture.
The excavation of GBY also revealed many other artifacts. These include more than thirteen thousand stone and wood objects. The assortment is largely composed of a variety of Acheulean hand axes. Other artifacts include hatchets, core tools, chippings and chipping tools.
Most of the stone material were prepared using basalt found within the region. Researchers classify the artifacts as ‘Large Flake Acheulean’. Apparently, no human remains such as bones have been discovered from the site. However, research indicates that ancient occupants of the area were possibly Homo erectus. It is also possible that Homo ergaster or ancient Homo sapiens lived within the site. The artifacts discovered from the site indicate long usage of the site and significant human activity (Weinstein 1998).
What can be learnt from artifacts found
The unearthing revealed a thirty-four meter deep sedimentary sequence. It included wide varieties of ancient flora and fauna. Additionally, there were thirteen Acheulian archaeological horizons. This demonstrated that there was human activity in the region (Feibel 2004).
The presence of burned tools indicates that the occupants of the site had discovered the controlled use of fire. Additionally, the fossils found particularly the remains of horses indicate that the occupants had perfected the domestication of animals. Other artifacts discovered at the site create a platform for researchers to investigate the use of tools for improving the livelihood of the occupants.
Research conducted by William Zeist and Sytze Bottema suggests that pollen record sedimentary cycles are distinct. The pollen diagram indicate that each of the cycles signify progression of lower lake-levels in the early stages to higher levels in the later stages. The discovery of Salvinia at the lowest point of the site indicates that the area experienced warm weather during the transportation of pollen from higher grounds.
The same plant was also discovered in open water raising concern as whether the plant can also grow in shallow open water as well as in swampy soil. The Ranunculus scleratus that grows in marshes was discovered in open water suggesting that open water may have retreated at some point. This suggests that other plants of the same species may grow in other areas. This means that the area may have experienced a cooler climate that has led to the extinction of many animal species.
Why the site and things found were important
Reproduction success, age-precise endurance, permanence and generational fruitfulness were the major parameters that indicated development in the ecology and natural balance. The parameters are an indication of population health and environmental quality of the generations that occupied the valley.
In artifact material, such environmental parameters are hard to acquire due to taphonomic prejudice (Ashkenazi 2005). The pollen found after excavation included pollen of trees, herbs and shrubs that grew on upland vegetation. The pollen found in the layers was hence transported from higher grounds of the valley. However, there was grass and reeds in the swampy area.
GBY is still partially under water. The site has presented archeologists with the opportunity to study about the ancient human activity in the region. The site is an outstanding sample of how nature preserves organic matter. In exploring the history of the site, it is evident that the ancient occupants of the valley included fish in their meals.
This is indicated by the presence of fish bones near to where other artifacts were found. Other fossils that are important to researchers include small to big mammals such as bears, gazelle and hippopotamus. Horse bones found at the site are an essential clue illustrating that the occupants were keeping animals.
Tooth marks and other burnt tools were found at the site. This is an indication that the occupants of the site were purposeful butchers. The burnt tools found at the site show that the occupants had already discovered fire. The multiple wood pieces and seeds at the site were burned. This is a clear indication of evidence of management of fire. Consequently, this means that the occupants were the earliest users of fire, more than four hundred thousand years.
The sediment discovered at the site are important in many ways. They help archeologists to analyze how climatic changes affected the flora and fauna at the site. The fossils afford researchers the opportunity to understand how the woods, grasses, shrubs and trees came into existence at the GBY. The transportation of pollen to the area is important to researchers in understanding the distribution of vegetation at the valley.
The oxygen isotope stages (OIS) 18-20 discovered at the valley sediment section opens a platform for researchers to illustrate that even-numbered isotope stages symbolize cold periods with diminishing temperatures. On the other hand, interglacial periods symbolize higher temperatures essential for complete formation of fossils.
The discovery of the OIS is important in discrediting the assumption that wet glacial and desiccated interglacial periods in the Mediterranean are a result of moist westerlies blowing southwards and that they significantly impact the climate of the region. It has been discovered that interglacials in the region would have been typified by warm and desiccated climatic conditions. Desiccated and wet phases may occur in glacial as well as interglacial periods.
The pollen record of GBY conforms to this idea. This means that the formation of the sediments in GBY during interglacial OIS 19 was relatively wet period with a single dry interval. The glacial period OIS 20 as indicated in the GBY sediment section was a dry period (Horowitz 1989).
The burnt archeological materials found at the site assist archeologists in determining the usage of fire. The materials facilitate in verifying the usage of controlled fire by hominids who occupied the site for thousands of years. The discovery of the burnt materials assist in explaining it is probable that the ancient occupants of the site did not use fire despite the usage of fire for thousands of years by successive generations. This is after considering that the penetration deepness of fire in sediment is very low.
Conclusion
Gesher Benot Ya’qov is an important archeological site. The site was formed during the long occupation by hominids believed to have used the route as the bridge from Africa to the rest of the world. Apparently, the human activities that took place led to the formation of sediment layers at the valley on the banks of River Jordan. The archeological evidence found at the site indicate that there was use of fire by the ancient occupants of the site.
There is evidence of burnt flints that were used by the occupants for hunting. Many fossils found at the site include animal and fish remains. However, it has not been established why there is no evidence of human fossil such as bones. The vegetation in the valley is observed to have been transported from long distance through pollen.
References
Ashkenazi, S. 2010 Fossil embryos and adult Viviparidae from the Early–Middle Pleistocene of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: ecology, longevity and fecundity. Lethaia. 43:116–127.
Ashkenazi, S. 2005 New morphometric parameters for assessment of body size in the fossil freshwater crab assemblage from the Acheulian site of Gesher.
Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Journal of Archaeology Science 32: 675–689. Baruch, U. 1991 Palynological evidence for climatic changes in the Levant ca. 17,000–9,000.
B.P. In: Bar-Yosef O,Valla FR (eds) The Natufian culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, Ann Arbor, 11–20.
Feibel, Charles S. 2004 Quaternary lake margins of the Levant Rift Valley. In Goren-Inbar N. & Speth J.D. (eds): Human Paleoecology in the Levantine Corridor, 21–36. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Grosman, Sharon G. 2011 The technology and significance of the Acheulian giant cores of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(8):1901-1917.
Horowitz, A. 1989. Palynological evidence for the Quaternary rates of accumulation along the Dead Sea Rift and structural implications. Tectonophysics 164: 63–71. McManamon, Francis P. 2011 The Archaeology of Kennewick Man. Electronic document, The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), https://core.tdar.org/project/6325/the-archaeology-of-kennewick-man.
Picard, L. 1952. The Pleistocene peat of Lake Hula. Bull. Res. Counc. Isr. 2G(2): 147–156.
Weinstein, Y. 1998. Mechanisms of generation of intra-continental alkali-basalts in norhteastern Israel. Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew Univ., Jerusalem, 101 pp. (in Hebrew, English abstr.). Zeist, Willem & Bottema, Sytze. 2009 A palynological study of the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Veget Hist Archaeological 18(1): 105-121.
Field walking can be defined as a technique for examining or studying archaeological sites by walking in a systematic way across a ploughed field collecting artifacts on the surface (Fasham, 1980). In most cases, it is practiced with the aim of locating or mapping the distribution and the extent of archaeological sites. It is believed that the top soil contains distinctive traces of all critical activities of archaeology (Wiseman & Zachos, 2003).
This explains why the topsoil is so much valued while giving information about archaeology (Bloemers & Bodemarchief in Behoud en Ontwikkeling, 2010). Field walking includes all the materials found in the soil. It also includes all the materials from the features that are under the top soil, which are exposed as a result of cultivation or ground works that come as plough soil.
Different sources of materials are mixed due to cultivation making a certain proportion of the soil’s content to be seen on the surface (Gabler, 2009). There are two ways of carrying out field walking. This includes line walking and grid walking (Darvill, 2008).
Line walking is where the lines of transects are created at certain intervals, and the field walkers walk along each line collecting materials that are within the line. The lines should be divided into stints, and the field walkers then bag the materials recovered by the line and the stint.
The second technique, which is grid walking, is where the survey area is divided into squares, and the field walkers use the fixed amount of time to work on each square collecting all the materials that they can see during the specified time of the search (Haas & Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, 2011).
After the specified time ends, the field walkers bag the collected materials together, then they move to the next square. Later on, different categories are mapped and the patterns identified. In this context, the paper discusses an investigation of the vale of Pewsey, Wiltshire of the late Bronze Age and Early Iron age (Pyle, 2000; Ellis, Powell, Hawkes & Allen, 2008).
Investigating the vale of Pewsey and Wiltshire
The research is about field walking and is set to examine the nature and extent of prehistoric activity of human in the Vale of Pewsey, a relatively poor area located between the Marborough Downs and Salisbury Plain (Timperley, 1954). The investigation will take place at the archaeological deposits at All Cannings Cross (Cunnington, 1923).
The Early All Cannings Ware Assemblages consist of round shouldered large jars with stamped in-filled decoration, bipartite bowls and tripartite jars (Cunlife, 2005, 90). The Late All Cannings Ware series is known by the decreasing number of large decorated jars, an increase in the number of furrowed, carinated bowls some of which are long necked and an increasing use of haematite coating (Cunlife, 2005, 92).
It can be noted that date to the emergence of the Late All Cannings Cross Group is not shown. The majority of All Cannings Cross Wares was made using local raw materials and the rest of the vessels incorporated materials from the wider region (Morris in Lawson, 2000, 140-9).
The East Chisenbury site is 2.5 meters high and 140 meters wide mound in the landscape that has never been affected by erosion, cultivation and tree planting (McGovern & Brown, 1986). After field walking, the materials that can be recovered from this place include animal bones, pottery, worked bones, stones, clay and metalwork (Kipfer, 2000).
Issues and field working methods
Establishment of a scale and the All Cannings Cross Site will be instrumental in the work to take place. In the early 20th century, the Cunningtons carried out investigations at the site. This was prompted when huge chunks of hammerstones were found. The field is located close to the vale of Pewsey. In addition, there was the enclosure of Rybury Camp above (Wild, 2003).
In the years between 1920 and 1922, three excavations followed in three seasons, which are equivalent to 15 weeks of excavations that took place. It is likely that the areas trenched could be repositioned with some certainty and the latest re-excavation at the Sanctuary on Overton Hill has brought into the fore more about Maude Cunnington’s field techniques (Averkieva & Sherman, 1992).
Work at the sanctuary indicates that the deposits that had been trenched by Cunnington still remain in the areas. Thus, resource assessment is critical. The resource assessment will help to establish the character of the data set (Okabe, 2006). The areas to the west or any area under cultivation will need to be field walked hence prompting for a need for the field walking program.
It is also important for the remaining deposits to be assessed to provide a basis of designing an adequate program of research and intervention (Chakrabarti, 2001). A consistent approach is required for field walking survey to ensure that the materials collected were accurately plotted and collected in a standardized way.
It is also vital for the process of collection to be able to register comparisons of quality and quantity across an individual site or the whole of the survey region. The entire approach is better because the individual approach will result in resource constraints in favor of the utilization of the standardized grid system.
The most appropriate way of preparing grids for field walk is to use site surveying poles along a fixed line. Putting down reference points as work proceeds are vital to avoid or reduce errors. Every intersection of the imaginary box grid will then be marked using a visible marker to avoid confusion (Tawrell, 2006).
Notably, the topography of the region (Pewsey) is not on the same level. Thus, the estimates will vary according to the amount of the surface area, which can be effectively explored visually by individual field walkers who are competent at working on a stint or a traverse (Grant, 2006).
Adopting a grid system will provide a mechanism that will allow comparisons. This will also allow comparisons between the various classifications of settlements at a scale associated with the investigations of archaeology (Schwind, 2007; Wilkinson & Kent Archaeological Field School 2007).
Other than recording data, it is important to record the date and duration of field walking (Kipfer, 2000). In addition to that, the light present should be assessed. In addition, moisture in the soil, field condition, and the crops should be noted. The site details which concerns the physical geology and the directions should be kept as these are the details of the location.
Conclusion
Field walking is very vital in archaeological field work survey, especially where visibility is good. Field walking includes all materials that are into or onto the top soil. It also includes all materials from the features that are under the top soil that are exposed as a result of cultivation or ground works, which come as plough soil.
The model is best suited for ploughed grounds. It can also be appropriate for surfaces with slight foliage. In this case, the soil is frequently turned to expose the artifacts and bring them on the surface. Erosion is also instrumental in facilitating field walking. In this case, it erodes the top soil allowing the underneath to be exposed.
Reference List
Averkieva, Y & Sherman, MA 1992, Kwakiutl string figures, UBC Press, Vancouver.
Bloemers, JHF & Bodemarchief in Behoud en Ontwikkeling 2010, The cultural landscape & heritage paradox: Protection and development of the Dutch archaeological-historical landscape and its European dimension, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Chakrabarti, DK 2001, Archaeological geography of the Ganga Plain: The lower and the middle Ganga, Permanent Black, Delhi.
Cunnington, MEP 1923, Early iron age inhabited site at All Cannings Cross Farm, Wiltshire: A description of the excavations, Simpson, Devizes.
Darvill, T 2008, The concise Oxford dictionary of archaeology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Ellis, C, Powell, AB, Hawkes, J & Allen, MJ 2008, An Iron Age settlement outside Battlesbury Hillfort, Warminster, and sites along the Southern Range Road, Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury.
Fasham, PJ 1980, Fieldwalking for archaeologists, Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, S.l.
Gabler, RE 2009, Physical geography, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA.
Grant, S 2006, Alternative ageing: The natural way to hold back the years, Michael Joseph, London.
Haas, TCA & Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen 2011, Fields, farms and colonists: Intensive field survey and early Roman colonization in the Pontine region, central Italy, Barkhuis, Eelde.
Kipfer, BA 2000, Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology, Kluwer Acad./Plenum Publ., New York.
Kipfer, BA 2000, Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology, Kluwer Acad./Plenum Publ. New York.
McGovern, PE & Brown, R 1986, The late bronze and early iron ages of central Transjordan, the Baqʻah Valley project, 1977-1981, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Okabe, A 2006, GIS-based studies in the humanities and social sciences, CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
Pyle, RM 2000, Walking the high ridge: Life as field trip, Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis Minn.
Schwind, M 2007, Dynamic pricing and automated resource allocation for complex information services: Reinforcement learning and combinatorial auctions, Springer, Berlin.
Tawrell, P 2006, Camping & wilderness survival: The ultimate outdoors book, Paul Tawrell, Lebanon.
Timperley, HW 1954, The Vale of Pewsey, Hale, London
Wild, T 2003, Village England: A social history of the countryside, Tauris, London.
Wilkinson, P & Kent Archaeological Field School 2007, Archaeology: What it is, where it is, and how to do it, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Wiseman, J & Zachos, KL 2003, Landscape archaeology in southern Epirus, Greece I, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens.
History of evolution began 6 million years ago. Specifically, the study of hominids was extensive because it focused on genus Homo. Hominids had anatomy, which enabled them to walk as well as stand on two feet. The earliest reconstruction of genus Homo was Lucy’s skeleton. It was fully bipedal with a small cranial capacity. Additionally, it was just over three feet tall.
According to estimations, Lucy’s fossils dated 3.2 million years. Lucy’s fossils were discovered in Ethiopia. This paper will explore the development of early hominids between 6 and 1.9 million years ago. To achieve this, the paper will describe major human fossils and archaeological findings in this period (Matt, Smith & Brown, 2009).
Development of early hominids between 6 and 1.9 million years ago: Major human fossils and archaeological find in this era. History of humans can be traced to Pliocene and Pleistocene periods. The earliest discovery was Australopithecus afarensis, which was dated more than 4 million years ago. This was followed by the discovery of Australopithecus africanus that dated between 3 million and 4 million years ago.
The next fossils discovered were of Australopithecus robustus that dated between 2 million and 3 million years ago. It was after this period that genus Homo was discovered. Another fossil discovered was the Australopithecines dated between 2 million and 1.8 million years. Australopithecines had low forehead. The forehead projected face. It is also estimated that the fossil had a 400cc brain.
Genus Homo dated around 2 million years. It had a forehead, which projected face. Additionally, it had about 700 cc of brain. After this came the discovery of homo erectus and Homo sapiens that had high foreheads with relatively flat face. The two fossils had 8000c and 1000cc brains respectively (Fagan, 2009).
Several fossils have been linked with the hominid linage. These include “Orrorin tugenensis”, which dated 5.7 million years. The other fossil was “Ardipithecus Kadabba” which was estimated to date 5.6 million years. It should be noted that there has been debate on whether the two fossils were bipedal or not. Additionally, there have been debates on whether the two fossils were ancestor of both hominids and apes or not.
It should be noted that the link between the earliest fossil species and hominid lineage are yet to be determined. For instance, Australopithecus afarensis had over 100 fossil representations in Ethiopia, South Africa and Kenya. These were found in Northern Ethiopia, Lake Turkana (Kenya), Swartkrans (South Africa) and Kromdraai (South Africa). Genus Australopithecus was mainly discovered in the African continent.
This happened 4 million years ago. It is believed that they evolved from Eastern Africa the spread throughout the continent (Fagan, 2009). Archeologists believe that Australopithecus became extinct 2 million years ago. However, during their existence, they evolved in different forms. These include Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, and Australopithecus africanus.
Nonetheless, the most predominant ones in Eastern Africa were Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus. The later is estimated to have lived between 3.1 million and 2.0 million years. It was gracile or slender. It is widely believed, based on fossil remains, that Australopithecus africanus was more like humans than Australopithecus aferensis.
It had a skull that could allow for a big brain. It was found in South Africa in 1924, 1935, 1948, and 1992 in Taung, Sterkfontein, Makapansgat and Gladysvale respectively. On the other hand, Australopithecus aferensis is live approximately between 4 million and 2.9 million years ago. It was also slender, and thought to be loosely related to genus Homo. One of the fossils was Lucy, which was found by Donald Johanson (Fagan, 2009).
The earliest Homo lived between 2 million years and 1.9 million years. It was Homo habilis. Most archeologists have referred to Homo habilis as the possible ancestors to modern humans. Homo habilis is a latin word, which means handy man. The fossil was found with tools made of bones and stones. It was then named Homo habilis based on its tools.
It is necessary to note that the fossil Homo habilis was found in Tanzania, which is in East Africa. Findings from its skull indicated that its brain portions, which associated with speech, were enlarged. It is also believed that capability to speak must have influenced cooperation during hunting as well as beginning of culture. It is also believed that hunting and gathering gave little room for brain development since Homo habilis had heavily muscled jaws for grinding nuts and grain as well as eating raw meat (Mader, 2003).
Human evolution is believed to have begun with the separation of chimpanzees and humanoids from the same ancestor. This is estimated to have happened between 5 and 6 million years ago. Fossils in this period included Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipithecus Kadabba, which dated 5.7 million and 5.6 million years respectively.
Nonetheless, the most dominant fossils in this period were Australopithecus Africans and Australopithecus aferensis, which have been associated with genus Homo in many occasions. Additionally, this period cover Homo habilis. This specie utilized tools made from bones as well as stones.
References
Fagan, B. (2009). People of the Earth: An Introduction to World Pre-History (13th ed.). London, England: Pearson.
Mader, S. (2003). Biology (8th ed.). New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Matt, C., Smith, F., & Brown, K. (2009). The Human Lineage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell..
Queen Hatshepsut’s remains have not been found completely, and there is much evidence to discuss the role of Thutmose III in the female pharaoh’s disappearance. Historians Manuelian and Loeben and archeologist Tyldesley formulated different hypotheses to explain the mystery. In this context, Manuelian and Loeben’s theory seems to be more plausible and convincing.
Main Body
The mystery is associated with many aspects of Queen Hatshepsut’s rule in Egypt. On the one hand, during a long period of time, historians could not assume that the images of the male-dressed pharaoh represented a female Egyptian king. On the other hand, the number of these images was limited because Thutmose III, a successor of Hatshepsut, focused on removing reminders related to Hatshepsut’s rule.
Additionally, the female pharaoh’s mummified remains seemed to disappear as well as wall-images and monuments (Sayre, 2011, p. 112). Thus, archeologists and historians focused on solving the mystery of the disappearance of the male-dressed Egyptian queen, and there are many hypotheses and theories to explain the mystery.
Historians Peter Manuelian and Christian Loeben state that the secret of Hatshepsut’s disappearance is similar to many other historical mysteries associated with the rule of powerful kings. Thus, to demonstrate her ability to rule equally to males, Hatshepsut introduced a “radical step of representing herself as a man, complete with the male torso and ceremonial royal beard” (Manuelian & Loeben, 1993, p. 27).
Researchers also note that Hatshepsut could die before her tomb was built at a certain place, and this fact explains the problem of finding the remains. Furthermore, Thutmose III’s attempts to remove traces of Hatshepsut’s rule should be discussed with references to his passion for strengthening the power, “expansion and incorporation”, then to the desire for revenge (Manuelian & Loeben, 1993, p. 28).
In addition, the actual destruction of Hatshepsut’s monuments could take place two decades “after the king had taken sole rule and begun his series of military campaigns” (Manuelian & Loeben, 1993, p. 28). According to Manuelian and Loeben, there are no mystery in Hatshepsut’s disappearance and Thutmose III’s actions.
Joyce Tyldesley, an archeologist, focuses more on the discussion of the social context typical for the period of Hatshepsut’s rule. It was unusual for the Egyptians to live and develop under the rule of the female pharaoh. Thutmose III could not admit the fact of Hatshepsut’s success, and he aimed to “rewrite Egyptian history” without the figure of the queen while removing all monuments and images (Tyldesley, 1996, p. 216).
Tyldesley also provides the theological explanation to Thutmose III’s actions because the Egyptians believed that the spirit could live forever in images (Tyldesley, 1996, p. 216). It was Thutmose III who started a “vindictive campaign” to remove reminders of Hatshepsut and who could even kill the successful female pharaoh (Tyldesley, 1996, p. 223). Tyldesley explains the disappearance of Hatshepsut’s remains in the social context, focusing on the idea of Thutmose III’s revenge.
Manuelian and Loeben’s theory can be discussed as most convincing because the historians support their conclusions with the archeologists’ data regarding the period of destructing Hatshepsut’s monuments. Moreover, Manuelian and Loeben’s theory is more plausible because the researchers concentrate on the analysis of the political situation in Egypt during the discussed period, avoiding the focus on the interpretation of Thutmose III’s possible motives to kill Hatshepsut or remove the traces of her rule.
References
Manuelian, P., & Loeben, C. (1993). From daughter to father: The recarved Egyptian sarcophagus of Queen Hatshepsut and King Thutmose I. JMFA, 5(1), 25-61.
Sayre, H. M. (2011). The humanities: Culture, continuity, and change. New York, NY: Strayer University Pearson Learning.
Tyldesley, J. (1996). Hatchepsut: The female pharaoh. London, UK: Viking.
The analysis of ceramics is a crucial feature of prehistoric and historical archaeology. Ceramics were possibly the earliest synthetic materials that humanity made. Indeed, broken ceramic fragments are “the most common artifacts found at archaeological sites around the globe” (Bishop, Rands and Holley 279). Therefore, ceramics comprise the most common materials that the archaeologists study. Apart from their wealth and sturdiness, ceramics have multiple microscopic and macroscopic characteristics of interest to scientists. Visual characteristics such as size, surface decoration and shape are ordinarily used as archaeological and cultural signs. Moreover, microscopic characteristics like the texture of the temper and clay compositions are used to analyze the preparation methods.
On the other hand, archaeologists use the chemical constituents of a ceramic to identify the origin of the ingredients used in its manufacture. The chemical composition of a ceramic also plays a significant role in determining the geographic displacement of the material. Further, archaeologists use the oxidation state of “iron-bearing ceramics to reconstruct firing conditions of the material” (Bishop, Rands and Holley 282). Through instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), archaeologists can come up with accurate information about a ceramic as well as the people that manufactured it. This paper will focus on instrumental neutron activation analysis as an archaeological method of analyzing ceramics. Besides, the paper will discuss how INAA is used to understand the past of the Olmec society.
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis
In spite of the numerous chemical methods that are used to analyze ceramics and clay, the instrumental neutron activation analysis is the most common technique. Other methods of analyzing ceramic materials include X-ray fluorescence (XRF), atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), inductively coupled plasma (ICP) and mass spectrometry (MS) among others. The instrumental neutron activation analysis has numerous advantages over the other techniques (Bishop and Blackman 605). First, INAA is highly accurate and sensitive to diverse elements. Thus, it enables the archaeologists to analyze all the constituents of a ceramic fragment. Second, it is easy to prepare and analyze small samples using the INAA technique. Third, instrumental neutron activation analysis prevents chemical reaction between the primary constituents of a ceramic. Last, it is easy to measure multiple constituents of a ceramic at the same time.
Instrumental neutron activation analysis mainly focuses on the characteristics of the nuclei of the constituents of a ceramic material. During collisions of a sample “with neutrons from a reactor, a fraction of the nuclei from each of the constituent elements are transformed into unstable isotopes that decay with characteristic half-lives” (Bishop and Blackman 607). In the course of the radioactive decay, the isotopes release many gamma rays that comprise different abundances and energies, which resemble the decaying isotope. The archaeologists measure the range of the released gamma rays to determine the number of constituent elements in a ceramic fragment.
Procedure of Ceramic Analysis through INAA
The study of ceramic materials through instrumental neutron activation analysis begins by extracting a small piece of the material. The archaeologists prepare the fragment for analysis and preserve a comparable piece for reference. At times, the surface of the piece may vary in composition from the original ceramic or paste used to make the earthenware due to numerous factors. The factors may include the contamination that might have arisen when the ceramic was under use. Besides, the difference may occur due to slipping or varnish available on the surface of the fragment or diagenesis (post-depositional processes) (Bishop and Blackman 609).
The inner and outer surfaces of the ceramic piece are extracted using a tungsten-carbide burring instrument. Once the burring process is over, the sample is polished using a toothbrush, cleaned using deionized water and left to dry for a couple of hours. Later, the archaeologists use a mortar and pestle to crush the fragment into powder. The powder is then placed in clean glass vials and heated for 24 hours (Glascock and Neff 21). The primary objective of heating the powder is to dry it. The different samples of the weighed powder are marked and put in distinct polyethylene ready for short and long irradiations.
After completing the irradiation process and collecting adequate data, archaeologists embark on an archaeological interpretation of the ceramic material. The archeologists focus on numerous things. First, they seek to identify the origin of the ceramic fragment. Second, they try to determine the materials used to make the ceramic. Third, the archeologists attempt to determine if the ceramic was made at the same location and duration as other samples (Glascock and Neff 25). In most cases, the data obtained through instrumental neutron activation analysis procedure comprise multiple elements. Therefore, the archaeologists rely on multivariate statistical analysis to determine and “quantify the similarities and differences between specimens and groups of specimens” (Bishop, Rands and Holley 294).
In some instances, the archeologists do the normalization of the chemical constituent contents. The goal of normalization is to cater for mineralogy and grain-size impacts on trace element concentrations. The normalization helps to minimize chances of wrong interpretation of the ceramic attribution. A standard approach “used in determining regional geochemical baselines is to normalize geochemical data using one element as grain-size and mineralogical proxy” (Glascock and Neff 31). Normalization in archeological ceramic analysis refers to a process that facilitates the reparation for the impacts of anthropogenic and natural processes. Therefore, the archeologists do not rely on statistical considerations when picking the normalizing element.
Case Study: Olmec-Style Ceramics
Over 3000 years ago, the early civilization in “ancient Mexico, the Olmec, coalesced along the Mexican Gulf Coast” (Blomster, Neff and Glascock 1068). Much of the New Mexico, together with Honduras, Belize, Guatemala, and El Salvador make up the cultural region referred to as Mesoamerica. Features of Olmec drawing techniques and related iconography were imprinted on tombstones in the Gulf Coast. Besides, it was possible to find characteristics of the Olmec drawing and painting techniques on moveable earthenware items that were found along the Gulf Coast in the entire Mesoamerica (Blomster, Neff and Glascock 1069). Archaeologists associated the presence of the iconography and drawing techniques with the propagation of the religious, political, and social institutions of the Olmec society.
The instrumental neutron activation analysis of the ceramic fragments collected along the Mexican Gulf Coast played a significant role in the interpretation of the growth and spread of a complex society in Mesoamerica. The presence of Olmec style in particular locations outside the Gulf Coast has been used to insinuate that it emerged in one region and later shipped to other areas. Some people argue that the Olmec-style ceramics reached other areas through interaction between the different regional chiefdoms (Blomster, Neff and Glascock 1071). The application of instrumental neutron activation analysis on archeologically collected ceramic materials helps to explain their origin as well as distribution during the Early Formative era.
The use of instrumental neutron activation analysis on ceramics obtained from the Gulf Coast helped the scientists to draw a clear picture of the Early Formative period. A recent study by archaeologists confirmed that the Olmecs had a superior sociopolitical level compared to other contemporaneous societies in Mesoamerica. The analysis concluded that “leaders, for example, at the emerging chiefdom of San Jose Mogote in the Valley of Oaxaca lived in somewhat better made wattle-and-daub huts than other villagers” (Costin 381). On the other hand, the leaders in San Lorenzo were quite advanced and dwelled in Red Palace. Moreover, the leaders used basalts to make step coverings, columns and drainage feeds for their houses. The analysis of ceramic fragments that bear Olmec art styles confirmed that the Olmecs had a composite degree of sociopolitical organization.
The archeologists use the absence of complete catalog of Olmec-style patterns at any single location to signify that every region had a hand in the development of the drawing and painting techniques. Besides, they support their argument by citing the evident regional disparities in the presentation of the Olmec style (Costin 384). Archaeologists have applied INAA technique to confirm that diverse communities used distinct, local assortments of Olmec-style signs. Some scientists claimed that the residents of the Valley of Oaxaca did not import ceramics from the Gulf Coast. Instead, the residents used Leandro Gray and Delfina Fine Gray to manufacture and export gray-ware ceramics to the entire Mesoamerica. To confirm this postulation, the archaeologists hollowed out Early Formative ceramics at an area known as Etlatongo (Pool 47).
The use of instrumental neutron activation analysis technique enabled the archaeologists to identify the nature of ceramic items that the Olmec produced. According to the analysis, the Olmec majored in the manufacture of luxury white wares like Xochiltepec White and Conejo Orange-on-White. The white wares were mainly made at San Lorenzo (Pool 48). The archaeologists concluded that a majority of the chiefdoms in Mesoamerica imported ceramic products from San Lorenzo. It underlines the reason Olmec-style ceramics were quite prevalent in most chiefdoms. The archaeologists found that some regions manufactured local alternatives of white wares. Nevertheless, the alternatives were only used locally. The archaeologists also found that the community that resided at San Lorenzo had the highest number of Olmec-style ceramics. The findings indicated that the Olmecs mainly lived at San Lorenzo (Pool 51).
The instrumental neutrons activation analysis offered numerous inferences for understanding the Olmec and their correlations with contemporaneous groups. The leaders of a majority of the chiefdoms in Early Formative Mesoamerica cherished the Olmec ceramics and signs related to Olmec. The rest of the regions did not contribute substantially to the developing of Olmec-style signs used outside each state (Pool 55). The Olmec never brought in ceramics bearing Olmec-style symbols from foreign states. Further, the analysis confirmed that neighboring regions never exchanged ceramics with one another. Some regions imported ceramics from distant locations. For instance, in spite of San Jose Mogote and Etlatongo being neighbors, the regions did not exchange ceramics. Instead, they opted to import them from distant regions like San Lorenzo.
The archaeologists argued that San Lorenzo Olmec contributed to the developing of unique styles and related iconography and distributing them across Mesoamerica. They theorized that the process of exchange of Olmec-style ceramics and signs differed based on the regions. According to the archaeologists, the Olmec did not impose their ceramics and signs on other regions (Pool 57). Instead, the regions embraced the ceramics, used, and later replicated them in varied ways.
The exchange of the ceramics and signs played a key role in negotiation and communication between societies at the interregional level. The analysis of the ceramics indicated that Olmec played a prominent role in social development in the larger part of Mesoamerica. The analysis showed that there was a significant interaction between the Olmec and other societies that consumed the ceramic products manufactured at San Lorenzo (Pool 63). The dynamic interaction between the Olmec and other communities explained the complex state of the Olmec associations during the Middle Formative era.
Conclusion
One of the greatest contributions of instrumental neutron activation analysis to archaeology is the identification of ceramic provenance. Archaeologists use INAA to determine the distribution of ceramics, influence of cultures, diffusion of communities, contacts between different regions as well as trading routes. Visual examination cannot enable archaeologists to identify different characteristics of archaeological artifacts. While visual examination may allow the archeologists to determine the style of decoration, color and shape of the ceramics, it may be hard for them to identify the constituent elements or provenance of the ceramic material. Therefore, archaeologists ought to study the chemical composition of the ceramic to understand its origin.
Besides, they need to use statistical methods to analyze the data corrected from ceramic fragments. The use of instrumental neutron activation analysis helped the archeologists to unearth the history of the Olmec society. The analysis did not only help the archaeologists to understand how Olmec-style ceramics and signs were distributed across Mesoamerica but also the correlations between Olmec and other communities. Most communities imported ceramics from San Lorenzo. Besides, they copied designs from the Olmec-style ceramics. The analysis confirmed that Olmec played a significant role in the sociopolitical development of Mesoamerica.
Works Cited
Bishop, Ronald, and James Blackman. “Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: Scale and Interpretation.” Accounts of Chemical Research 35.8 (2002): 603-610. Print.
Bishop, Ronald, Robert Rands, and George Holley. “Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5.1 (2003): 275-330. Print.
Blomster, Jeffrey, Hector Neff, and Michael Glascock. “Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined through Elemental Analysis.” Science 307.5712 (2005): 1068-1072. Print.
Costin, Cathy. “The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7.4 (2000): 377-403. Print.
Glascock, Michael, and Hector Neff. “Neutron Activation Analysis and Provenance Research in Archaeology.” Measurement Science and Technology 14.9 (2003): 19-37. Print.
Pool, Christopher. Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Cambridge: Cambridge World Archaeology, 2007. Print.
