(L11) Field Arch- inferring-describing the bioarchaeologcial record

The main topic(s) of the day: inferring-describing the bioarchaeologcial record (the study of human skeletal remains at archaeological sites); explaining how and why this record changed through time and space; and explaining how and why those changes may reflect/relate to other past human behaviors (e.g., demography [age/sex/ancestry], health, diet, conflict/trauma, and ritual/cultural practices).

Table 1. Culture groups of Wiltshire through time
Period Dates Notes
Modern 1950 – present
World Wars 1900 – 1950
Empire 1714 – 1900 Georgian and Victorian eras
Stuart 1603 – 1714
Early Modern / Tudor 1486 – 1603
Late Medieval 1066 – 1486 Norman Invasion to Tudors
Viking c.800 – c.1000 Boating enthusiasts
Early Medieval c.600 – 1066 Kingdoms and conflicts
Migration / Romano-British / Anglo-Saxon 410 – c.600 Collapse; Anglo-Saxon expansion
Roman AD 43 – 410 Cities
Celtic Iron c.2800 BP (c.800 BCE) to AD 100 Iron technology; hillforts
Chalcolithic (Copper Age) and Celtic Bronze c.4500 BP to c.2800 BP (c.2500 BCE to c.800 BCE) Copper and Bronze technologies; elaborate megalithic henges
Neolithic c.6200 BP to c.4500 BP (c.4200 BCE to c.2500 BCE) Farmers and herders; ceramics; barrows and causewayed enclosures
Mesolithic c.11,000 BP to c.6,200 BP Still hunter-gatherers, fishers
Upper Paleolithic c.40ka to 33ka; c.15ka to c.11ka Anatomically modern Homo sapiens
Middle Paleolithic c.225ka to c.180ka; c.60ka to c.40ka Homo neanderthalensis
Lower Paleolithic c.900ka to c.225ka Homo antecessor; Homo heidlebergensis

To date, we’ve detailed the succession of populations though time and space, as well as outlined associated paleoenvironmental conditions, dietary/subsistence, and lithic, ceramic, and metal technological practices. For this lab, let’s begin by formulating some initial hypotheses as to how and why some/any aspect of the bioarchaeological record may have changed through time. Why? How would you test (i.e., potentially falsify) your hypothesis?
OK. Let’s tackle some of the cool questions you’ve posed in greater detail. First though, let’s step back and really think how we’re envisioning the bioarchaeological record here. As archaeological anthropologists we’re interested in past folks, their lifeways, their successes/adaptations, and their failures. We’re interested in how prehistory unfolds, and how we can use hard-learned lessons of the past to better understand the present… with an eye toward planning for a better future. The one “thing” present during all of this? Human bodies. Human bodies and their skeletal remains are neat too because they are not static! The continually modify through life (and often death) in response to stimuli. Many of these responses are characteristic of specific genetic programing, stimuli or external forces. For example, a high-powered musket shot will leave a VERY distinctive series of trauma on human cranium; trauma that can be clearly distinguished from all other sorts of projectile damage.

Second, we’ll need to touch a bit on typologies. Who can define this term for us? You’ll recall that we used metal, ceramic, and lithic typologies in previous labs to good effect. With human remains though, we’ll need to be very careful. One really can’t use such ideas effectively with human remains due to continuous variation in forms across human populations. I.e., there simply aren’t clear distinctions in in human osteological remains between neighboring groups. This simply wasn’t the case with flanged and palstave axe heads for example, which clearly differed in size and shape, with no intermediary forms represented in the record. Here’s we’ll have to think statistically. We’ll need to appreciate variation to a greater degree than previously. And we’ll often have to base arguments on probability. We’ll need to approach things from a population-level perspective too (i.e., a nomothetic perspective, not an ideographic one with the focus being any single individual). We’ll also have to be particularly wary of equifinality: the case where two or more processes can produce the same physical record! Why might equifinality be vexing to an archaeologist (or any scientist for that matter)?