Courtesy of Statistical Research, Inc.

1
 Climate & Environment
 Climate refers to temperature and precipitation. weather
vs
local biosphere/ river area or desert

 Environment generally refers to geophysical and

biological surroundings.

http://www.climate-charts.com/World-Climate-Maps.html

2
 Environmental Archaeology
Environmental Archaeologists:
 Geoarchaeologists.
study soils and rock formations, other
aspects of the geology of an archaelogic site
(s)

 Paleobotanists or plants within environments OR human

interaction with plants
Paleoethnobotanists.
 Zooarchaeologists (in Europe often
Photo by David Maxwell “Archaeozoologist”). study animal remains from archeological
context

 The main data source is the ecofact.

Ecofact: non-artifactual organic or
environmental remains which have
cultural relevance. has to be connected to human activity
 Artifacts are also helpful in
environmental archaeology.
 Artifacts made from faunal &
botanical materials can also be
Courtesy of Statistical Research, Inc.
employed as ecofacts.
3
 Geoarchaeology
 Primarily concerned with non-
organic ecofacts from archaeological
sites.
 Often to address issues of
archaeological context:
 Sedimentation.
 Soils.
 Stratigraphy.
 Formation processes.
 Also with:
 Landforms.
 Climate & environmental
reconstruction. https://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/exhibits/virtual-exhibits/Stratigraphy.html

4
 Context Issue
 Archaeological context is not a
natural context. humans altered the environment
 Archaeological assemblages not
representative of immediate
environment.
 Transport. bring in resources not present originally

 Trade.
 Even problems associated with
seasonality: what time of year was site used adn what reasources were
used

 Storage.
http://www.archaeology.org/issues/145-1409/features/2368-peopling-the-americas-monte-verde
 Curation.
 “Off-site” (non-site) data.

5
 Climate & Environment
Salicornia virginica  Plants and small animals sometimes
(Slender Pickleweed)
is used as an used as indicator species.
indicator of wetlands  Secondary data for reconstruction
environments.
of:
 Environment
http://www.wnps.org/plants/salicornia_virginica.html  Climate
 Indicator species are a form of proxy
California Vole data
(Microtus  Observational data used to infer
californicus).
conditions not directly observable
Voles live in restricted
areas, making them  Used by way of analogy for
good indicator species environmental reconstruction
for environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_vole#/media/File:California_Vole_(Microtus_californicus).jpg
6
 Climate & Environment
 Indicator Species: species on the
planet are restricted to ranges in
habitat because of their
physiological requirements:
 Some plants.
 Some smaller mammals.
 Certain insects & gastropods. snails

 Foraminifera.
microscopic examples of marine gastropods -- tell water environment (temp, salinity
level) --effect resources available for others

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GeolSci/micropal/foram.html

Foraminifera 7
Data Sources for Reconstructing Climate
 Historical records, where they
exist (generally after 5,000 years
ago).
 Temperatures derived from
Oxygen isotope ratios (18O/16O)
from obtained from: give infor on past water temps
 Gases trapped in ice cores.
 The ice cores themselves.
 Mollusks, plankton, & single-
celled organisms (foraminifera,
https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/images/silverfish_otoliths.jpg
ostrocods).
Fish otoliths (ear bones) are frequently
used for reconstructing temperatures. 8
 Data Sources for Reconstructing Climate

 Relative measures of precipitation

may be derived from:
 Historic records.
 Lakebed sedimentation (reflects
flushing from rivers in wetter
climates).
trees preserve very well
 Vegetation proxies.
 Faunal proxies.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpn/ca_south.gif

9
 Subsistence & Diet
Diet is specifically what you eat. subsistence is how you obtain what you eat (ie hunting and gathering, agriculture)

Subsistence refers to how you obtain what you eat. 10

 Subsistence & Diet
 Environment. dictates what type of food you will get

 Economic strategies.
 Plant and animal remains.
 Direct evidence of food, meals, &
diet.
 Evidence from human bones &
teeth. greatly affected by diet
 Artifacts related to obtaining &
processing food.
 Historic documents.
http://www.faysafaris.com/wilderbeest-migration.htm

11
 Subsistence & Diet
 Environment:
 Climate.
 Animal populations &
distributions.
 Ancient flora & their abundance.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wildebeest_Migration_in_Serengeti_National_Park,_Tanzania.jpg  Soil potential.
 Economic Strategies:
 Hunter-gatherer.
 Horticulturalism. small scale plant production -- gardening
 Pastoralism. herding domesticated animals and following them
around as they follow their food supply

 Intensive agriculture.

12
http://goafrica.about.com/od/tanzania/a/TanzaniaSafari.htm
 Subsistence & Diet
 Plant & Animal Remains:
 Palynology – study of pollen.
 Phytoliths – opaline silica bodies that
form in & around plant cells.
 Floatation used to recover plants.
 Seasonality Studies.
 Direct Evidence:
 Catastrophic preservation.
 Pompeii.
 Grave offerings:
 Saqqara, Egypt.
 Han Period, China. https://la.utexas.edu/users/denbow/labs/palynology.htm

 Coprolites (human faeces).

 Stomach contents:
 Grauballe Man.
 Tollund Man.
 Residues:
 Fats, lipids, DNA

13
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/d3/bf/92d3bfbe0d16292c4317ee25ad3ca829.jpg
 Subsistence & Diet
 Human Bones & Teeth:
 Dietary stress: like a harris line but physical on teeth --
bad diet show on teeth

 Enamel hypoplasia:
 Harris Lines: lines of arrested growth -- when growing, person did not
have a good, steady diet -- person stopped growing

 Bone collagen methods:

 Stable carbon isotopes.
http://acbjournal.org/search.php?where=aview&id=10.5115/acb.2014.47.1.66&code=1049ACB&vmode=PUBREADER#!po=90.0000
 Nitrogen isotope.
 Strontium / Calcium.
 Artifacts.
 Historic Documents:
 World’s oldest cookbook: 3
Babylonian cuneiform clay tablets.
https://www.library.yale.edu/neareast/exhibitions/food/images/C-YBC%204644-recipes.jpg 14
Courtesy of Statistical Research, Inc.

1
 Palaeobotany
 Study of plant (botanical) remains
of relevance to archaeology.
 Plant fragments, pollen, &
phytoliths.
 Foods. http://www.archaeology.org/issues/175-1505/trenches/3162-trenches-mexico-maize-domestication

 Plants provide materials for

construction.
 For manufacture of tools.
 For fuel. wood doesn't preserve well but burning wood does

 Fibres for clothing.

 Ingredients for medicines

Phot by David Maxwell

2
 Zooarchaeology
 Study of animal (faunal) remains of
relevance to archaeology.
 Primary data for:
 Diet.
 Technology.
 Behaviour.
 Subsistence.
Photos by David Maxwell
 Hunting & butchery patterns.
 Domestication.
 Trade.
 Seasonality.
 Secondary data for:
 Environmental reconstruction.
 Climate.
Growth lines in bivalve shellfish
provide indications of seasonality 3
 Jonathan C. Driver & David Maxwell
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia

4
 Game Drives
 Large-scale hunting activities,
such as bison jump sites & rabbit
drives.
 Large numbers of animals were
taken at the same time (net fishing
has similar results, but does not
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.ca/2012/03/when-jack-rabbuts-became-scapegoats.html
necessarily have any “drive
participation” involved).
 Should be recognizable by the
sheer number of animals present
in a single kill location, provided
these appear to be
contemporaneous.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dead_jackrabbits_after_rabbit_drive,_ca.1902-1910_(CHS-1325).jpg
5
 Demography & Mortality Profiles
 Demography: the study of the size
and structure (age & sex) of a
population.
 Mortality profile: The
demographic structure of a death
assemblage.
 Predation happens in a variety of
manners, all of which will
influence the type of resources
being taken in the past.
 Some, but not all, will leave
potentially distinctive patterns in
the archaeological record.
 Fundamental to:
 Understanding hunting strategies.
 Studying cultural ecology.
 Human dietary/nutritional
studies.
 Understanding economic systems.
 Identifying herd management &
domestication efforts.
6
 Early Studies
 Some of the earliest work on  Focused on two main issues:
population structure was done on 1. Seasonality based on dental
presumed mass kills of bison, development & wear.
particularly on the NW Plains & 2. Population structure as a clue to
adjacent regions. hunting strategies mass kills
20 versus attritional kills.
Number of Individuals

attritional -- take some animals , waiting a couple weeks then getting more animals
15

10

5 Population Structure from

0
Glenrock Site
Age Groups

7
 Expected Population Structures
 Zooarchaeologists noted that assemblages produced by mass killing
should reflect a "snapshot" of a population.
 Assemblages resulting from individual hunting should be more like the
attritional mortality profiles of natural populations.

Number of Individuals
Number of Individuals

prime age = least likely to die

young Age Groups old

Age Groups

Idealized Catastrophic Mortality Curve Idealized Attritional Mortality Curve

8
 Untested Assumptions
1. The "snapshot" of a population would look broadly the same at all
seasons.
2. Humans would act like non-human predators when undertaking
individual hunting, focusing on young / weak / aged animals.
Number of Individuals

Age Groups 9
 Mass Kill Data
 Data from what appeared to be
mass kills fit the "snapshot" model
25 fairly well, except for
20 underrepresentation of young
15 animals.
10  Explanations for this lack of young
animals were generally linked to
5
post-kill behaviour by people.
0
 Young animals were preferentially
Age Groups
removed from the kills and
processed elsewhere.
Wardell Site Population Structure

10
 Counterproposal
 Driver (1983) argued that neither
behavioural nor taphonomic
explanations could account for the
absence of young animals.
 He concluded that environmental
conditions must have removed
young animals from the
population prior to the communal
hunt.
 Driver suggested that communal
hunts were being conducted at
times when environmental factors
were having a heavy impact on
bison herds.
 Humans were increasing their
food security by undertaking
communal kills.
 This countered the arguments of
Frison and Reher that time was
required between communal kills
to allow bison populations to
reach adequate levels.
11
 Modeling Ungulate Populations
hooved animals ie bison, deer
 Are our models for ungulate
population structure accurate?
 No
 Data suggest that there is significant
mortality of neonates within the first
summer.
baby animals
 That this is driven largely by non-
human predators.
 We would therefore expect that bison
kills in the fall would not have such
large numbers of young animals as
originally modelled.
 New Model:
 Given a revised view of anticipated
population structure, mass kills of
ungulates in the fall would
be expected to have lower numbers of
calves than the summer, and the
percentage of calves would drop even
further in winter.
 The mortality patterns seen in fall
kills are therefore consistent with the
mass killing of a herd.
 No need to postulate special
mechanisms for the absence of
calves.
12
 Combining the Curves
 If a communal hunting episode occurs after a period of attritional
hunting, the catastrophic curve will be dominated by prime adults.

60

50

40

30

20

10

Catastrophic Count Attritional Count 13

 Combining the Curves
 If a communal hunting episode occurs after a period of attritional
hunting, the catastrophic curve will be dominated by prime adults.

60

50

40

30

20

10

Catastrophic Count Attritional Count 14

 Glenrock Site Population

16
Number of Individuals 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Age Groups

Data from Reher 1970

15
Agate Basin Site Population

15

Number of Individuals

10

0
Age Groups

Data from Frison & Stanford 1982

16
 Finley Site Population

Number of Individuals 4

0
Age Groups

Data from Todd & Hoffman 1987 17

 Hawkin Site Population

15

Number of Individuals

10

0
Age Groups

Data from Frison, Wilson & Wilson 1976

18
 Casper Site Population

20

Number of Individuals
15

10

0
Age Groups

Data from Reher 1974 19

Hudson-Meng Site Population

90
80
Number of Specimens
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Age Groups

Data from Agenbroad 1978

20
 Discussion
 The Post-Attritional Catastrophic Curve does not provide a perfect fit in
comparison with the sample of Bison kill sites in this study.
 It does, however, provide a reasonable match for many, & a means of
explaining several others.
 In order to understand the population structures encountered at many
sites, it is important to realize that catastrophic mass kills may result in
population structures that are very different in shape to the idealized
curves expected by many archaeologists.

21
Bison & Wildebeest: Similarities
Bison Wildebeest

Preferred habitat Grassland Grassland

Sexual dimorphism Yes Yes

Sexual maturity (f) 2-4 2-4

Calf One (precocious) One (precocious)

Life expectancy c. 20 years c. 20 years

Birth seasonal A few weeks (summer) A few weeks (rainy)

Migratory Yes, likely variable Yes, highly variable

22
Bison & Wildebeest: Differences
Bison Wildebeest

Weight 300-900 kg 120-270 kg

Non-migratory herds? Unknown Yes

Non-human predators Wolf Lion

Grizzly bear Cheetah
Hyena
Wild dogs

Males territorial during No? Yes

rut

23
 Time Series of Wildebeest Populations, Kruger National Park
Variation in Age Ratios and Population Size

100%
90%
80%
2560 3158 3328 4239
70% 3146 2905 4738
60%
Adult
50%
Yearling
40% 1407 Juvenile
807 873 1111 1715 1085
545
30%
20%
1450 1429 1335 1547 1771 2260
10% 1674
0%
Jan-78 Jan-79 Jan-80 Jan-81 Jan-82 Jan-83 Jan-84
Data from Mason 1990 24
Selected Bison Mass Kill Site Age Frequencies

100%
90%
80%
70% 144
60% 48 56
113 79
50% 25
40% Adult
30% Yearling
0 42
20% Calf
10% 6 18
9 12 35
6 5 3
0% 0

25
 Wildebeest Analogue
 The wildebeest analogue shows:
 Considerable variation in the relative
proportions of calves, yearling and
adults should be expected.
 We should not expect large ungulates
population curves to display a classic
“catastrophic” mortality pattern.
 Caution must be used when applying
highly generalized or idealized age
structures as a means of comparison
with archaeological sites.
 Analyzing herd structure in the same
fashion that biologists look at living
herd structures is instructive.
 Sites with populations that were
previously perplexing, such as
Hudson-Meng, are now much more
clearly representative of catastrophic
mortality patterns.
 Sites such as Horner and Carter/Kerr-
McGee, which were ambiguous, are
now best explained as either
catastrophic or a close variant of this
pattern.
26