DOCSLIB.ORG

A Research Program on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Special Volume 6 (2016): Space and Knowledge. Topoi Research Group Articles, ed. by Gerd Graßhoff and Michael Meyer, pp. 777–818.

Svend Hansen – Jürgen Renn – Florian Klimscha – Jochen Büttner – Barbara Helwing – Sebastian Kruse

The Digital Atlas of Innovations: A Research Program on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity

Edited by Gerd Graßhoff and Michael Meyer, Excellence Cluster Topoi, Berlin

eTopoi ISSN 2192-2608 http://journal.topoi.org

Except where otherwise noted, content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

Svend Hansen – Jürgen Renn – Florian Klimscha – Jochen Büttner – Barbara Helwing – Sebastian Kruse

The Digital Atlas of Innovations: A Research Program on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity

The authors discuss the simultaneous appearance of technological innovations in three key technologies (metallurgy, wheeled vehicles, weighing systems) in the second half of the 4th millennium. This is done from a source-critical perspective because the innovations are discussed with the help of dynamic maps from the Topoi project Digital Atlas of Innovations. Besides indications of diffusion gradients influenced by special research conditions, exceptional waves of innovation can be detected for all three technologies in the discussed period. These waves of innovation cannot, however, be generalized but have to be understood on the basis of the respective technology traditions and lines of development specific to local areas. Monocentric diffusion theories can be clearly disproven, local technology developments and their converging in certain centrally situated regions have to be assumed instead. Similarly, the transfer of objects and their châine opératoire can only be detected rather infrequently, while the adaptation to local socio-economic and environmental factors can be demonstrated.

Prehistory; Chalcolithic; Copper Age; Bronze Age; technological innovations; diffusion; mapping.

1 Introduction

Since the 19th century the history of technology started with the inventions in the Early States in Egypt and Mesopotamia. All inventions were made in the centres and then spread over the world into the peripheries. This kind of diffusionism was unsettled by the radiocarbon revolution which pushed back some innovations in time. Metallurgy was invented long before the ancient city states and the first evidences for wheel and wagon were found in a wide are from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf.

Beside radiocarbon revolution the end of East-West bloc confrontation made new research possible understanding the interdependencies between Europe, Western and Central Asia and the Far East in the Holocene.

Under a layer of outdated assumptions it is possible to expose new empirical evidences for the innovations in toolmaking and craſtsmanship but also ideologies which in many cases coined the live and dead of people until the 18th and 19th century. This has to be done in the perspective of a global history of knowledge to which archaeology can make a major contribution. The long durée and the global perspective unfold an explanatory power in the history of knowledge. It is one history of knowledge and all kinds of knowledge are of equal value. Now, the emergence, the transfer and transformation of knowledge can be traced over thousend of generations by archaeology.

  • 778
  • Svend Hansen et al.

2 The Digital Atlas of Innovations as a tool. Possible applications

Everytime when the world was measured anew, new maps were required. The Digital Atlas of Innovations is a new tool, an interactive, interoperable map connected to a continuously growing find database. For a long time, archaeology has been collecting the material remains of many innovations, from the first use of fire in the Paleolithic to the first use of pottery in the Neolithic to the invention of the screw in antiquity. Admittedly, the mapping of, in each case, the earliest evidence of great and small innovations already allows us to locate the technologies in the world. However, these maps oſten have only illustrative character. The Digital Atlas of Innovations, on the other hand, is a dynamic tool that makes developments and relationships identifiable. We will, of course, never find out where the wheel was invented. Therefore, the Digital Atlas of Innovations examines the earliest evidence of innovations over a longer period. That is the first 2000 years in the case of wheeled vehicles! The innovations are embedded into an examination of the long duration (longue durée). It is the strength of prehistoric archaeology not only to look at such long periods of time on the basis of physical age determination, but also to be able to examine them precisely for short-lived booms.
An atlas consists of a wide range of maps. The scale of the maps is determined by the manageability when used. A world atlas offers an overview of the countries of the earth; in order to capture the geographical details of individual countries, on the other hand, one needs different atlases. The Digital Atlas of Innovations is not restricted by such limitations. It is a dynamic tool that makes it possible to change the scale of time and space and to continue creating new maps. With the aid of a timeline, all pieces of evidence for innovations can be represented in decades, centuries or millennia. The Digital Atlas of Innovations allows also to distinguish periods of increased technological innovations from those times in which no or very few changes can be recognized (Fig. 1). In the same way, innovative regions and innovation-hostile regions can be identified. It will be possible to determine which bodies of knowledge were, aſter all, available in individual regions or could have been available.
The Digital Atlas integrates the archaeological sources on several different levels and, in doing so, is able to represent different steps of a production chain. Therefore, it is not only possible to map the earliest evidence for a certain innovation on the basis of finds, but also to generate maps for different detailed solutions based on technological properties. The earliest use of silver can be represented on the basis of finished products, the cupellation on the basis of byproducts.
By trade or given as presents, objects can become widely distributed without the associated knowledge of their production being spread as well. The Digital Atlas of Innovations is, however, able to prove the distribution of formulas, in other words, hard technological knowledge, for example based on the characteristics of copper alloys (see below). It is also suited to represent ritual practices like sacrifices, for instance, on the basis of their remains in time and space. At the same time, a source-critical basis for the representation and discussion of the emergence and spread of technological knowledge is created in doing so. There is always the question in which archaeological contexts objects have been passed down (e.g. as a sacrifice) and under which conditions they have survived (e.g. wood in moors and deserts). This is also important regarding those artifacts whose material can be re-used regularly, like copper and silver: mostly those artifacts have usually survived that were consciously withdrawn from the recycling loop by depositing them in graves or hoards. Therefore, it is a given that the find contexts can be linked to the objects in the mappings.
It has to be stressed that the dynamization of the archaeological ‘distribution map’ allows us to recognize new relationships in time and space. The existing distribution maps show stages of innovations, defined by the respective scholar for different reasons. Oſten,

  • The Digital Atlas of Innovations: A Research Program on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity
  • 779

Fig. 1 | Overview of the taking effect of prehistoric innovations; not the first appearance is shown, but the wide-ranging use on the Eurasian continent.

these stages are (arbitrarily) assigned time marks. The Digital Atlas of Innovations, however, aims at reading the rhythms of development and periodizations in the maps. Therefore, new questions can be generated from the maps. The maps in the Atlas of Innovations are not the illustration of a statement, but a heuristic device on the basis of which new questions can be asked. They constitute the beginning of a line of thought. The map itself becomes an essential device to direct logically consistent lines of thought.1

3 Innovation and technology as a social phenomenon

Innovations are new and useful things.2 As a result, earlier research oſten explained their spread with the help of a functionality paradigm. According to A. Toynbee, technologies are developed in order to solve challenges and problems in interacting with the environment.3 The right amount of problems, i.e. a certain environment, finally leads to the kind of technological progress that was followed by the first states. U. Eco, however, has challenged this notion of innovation by critically considering the sources, asking whether

12

Eggers 1950–1951. The Duden defines innovation as “planned and controlled change” (“geplante und kontrollierte Veränderung”), “introduction of something new” (“Einführung von etwas Neuem”) and “realization of a novel, progressive solution for a certain problem” (“Realisierung einer neuartigen, fortschrittlichen Lösung für ein bestimmtes Problem”). Cf. www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Innovation (visited on 01/06/2016). Cf. Toynbee 1965, especially vol. II, “Challenge and Response”.

3

  • 780
  • Svend Hansen et al.

innovations that have been interpreted as creative quantum leaps could not just reflect the absence of other serially produced counterparts. Furthermore, his and newer considerations show that the variation necessary for innovation is oſten accidental and emerges from the creative handling of known technologies.4 According to this, an innovation is a creatively and newly arranged selection of known features which will be accepted if it fits into the society’s repertoire of symbols.
Technological innovations already were an integral part of different primates’ cultures, i.e. they are not an exclusive characteristic of human beings.5 Especially artifacts, in other words, mechanizing innovations, can be archaeologically recorded, while innovations on other levels have to be inferred via analogies. The ability to implement almost continually new technologies in a social system is a characteristic of our culture – and has been since its earliest beginnings. At 3.6 million years, the earliest stone tools known at the moment are even older than the species Homo,6 and this circumstance could be read to the effect that the use of stone tools by Australopithecus was an important factor for the human evolution. Thus, technology made humankind.
Technology and society structure each other in a network of relationships on different levels and over long periods of time: For such a process, however, technologies also have to be compatible with the social system in which they are intended to work.7 Since existing technologies can be degraded by the emergence of innovations, an innovation does not suddenly lead to an improvement of living conditions.8 For this reason, too purposeful an understanding of innovation is only useful to a limited extent. For example, innovations can be due to the marking of cultural characteristics and the targeted search for cause-effect principles.9 Even if the invention of new technologies is oſten associated with individuals, their development is far more complicated. Technological innovations draw on elements of known technologies and improve these or combine long-known aspects in a new way.10
Innovations spread or are rejected precisely because they are socially relevant. This happens, for example, when people that are considered exemplary use them or when the non-use as a deviation from given standards leads to social sanctions.11 As a consequence, the imitated group can see themselves forced to define new standards which produces further innovations.12 In this way, the consumption of innovations can develop its own dynamics that is fed by the pursuit of social distinction.13 The taking up of an innovation is, however, also a risk since the desired distinction is not guaranteed, and people without access to the technology can subsequently lose their status. Moreover, an open society that is prepared to allow innovations and understand their social value is a basic condition. Therefore, innovations are particularly promoted by social fringe groups that risk a loss of status more easily.
The work of E. M. Rogers, who believed to have identified five aspects that decide over the acceptance of innovations, is instrumental for researching innovations in modern times.14 When an innovation convinces, the adaptation process begins in which the innovation is used by an increasingly larger group – this is diffusion and can be graphically

456789

Eco 1989; Eco 1990; Eco 1994. Cf. also the contributions in: Hallam and Ingold 2007. Waal 2002. Baales 2006, 53–54. Cf. also Baales 2012. Rammert 2007, 19–24. Schumpeter 1961. Rammert 2007, 20.
10 Basalla 1989. 11 Tarde 2008. 12 Elias 1976. 13 Torstein 2009. 14 Rogers 2003, 15–16.

  • The Digital Atlas of Innovations: A Research Program on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity
  • 781

represented as a sigmoid curve in a coordinate system with the users on the y-axis and time on the x-axis. Since the archaeological sources record innovations only when they have already been adopted, it is almost impossible to document the invention and the early stages of the innovation archaeologically. During this diffusion, the innovation has to be communicated; this can usually be tracked well on the basis of the archaeological sources.
Although a number of modern consideration can also be applied to prehistoric and ancient societies, there are specific features that are hardly taken into account by modern innovation research. For example, the mastery of the whole production chain, including the sourcing of raw materials, their preparation and processing, is necessary for a permanent adoption of innovations. In the case of wheel and wagon, the general availability of wood and the mastery of woodworking is certainly a reason for the rapid and far-reaching spread. In contrast, the production of complicated metal tools obviously remained limited to a few regional centers.

3.1 Archaeology and technology

Prehistoric societies invest a significant part of their time in the modification of their artifacts. Besides the obvious improvement of tools, there can be a number of reasons for this. In an ongoing process, old artifacts are abandoned and new ones introduced. It is thanks to this fact that C. J. Thomsen’s15 division of prehistory into a Lithic, Bronze and Iron Age is, in principle, still valid today. W. F. Ogburn has postulated the temporal primacy of the technological development over the social development, coining the term “cultural lag”.16 According to this theory, technology develops more quickly than society, so society continually has to adjust to the conditions caused by the new technologies. V. G. Childe deduced the indeed great importance of technology from archaeological finds, but also showed how certain forms of society enable the generating of new technologies in the first place.17 With this, he overcame, at least for prehistoric times, Ogburn’s postulate.18
Only recently, the necessity of certain technological and social conditions has been increasingly pointed out in archaeology and their existence emphasized as vital for the spread and acceptance of innovations.19 The history of sciences and technologies as a field of work has existed for some time, however.20 An archaeology of innovations is not a matter of applying concepts worked out on the basis of other data to the finds, but to review these concepts with the aid of archaeological sources and to develop archaeological innovation research. Archaeological and historical sources offer, despite all their specific shortcomings, good conditions to examine the interplay of technology and society over longer periods of time. Due to their temporal depth, they are able to track the individual elements of which a technology is composed and they grant an insight into long formation processes of technology, and the willingness of societies to accept innovations and its consequences.21 The understanding of the development, introduction and spread of technologies, and of the resulting social processes in prehistoric and ancient times is certainly in its very early stages and remains a research field that still has to be established, but possesses areas of contact with the history of technology of antiquity,22 the Middle

15 Thomsen 1836. 16 Ogburn 1937. 17 Childe 1937. 18 Childe 1951; Strahm 1994. 19 Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel 2014; Eichmann and Klimscha 2011; Hansen 2011. 20 Serres 1998. 21 Cf. e.g.: J. Müller 2004; Hansen 2011; Primas 2007. 22 Schneider 1992.

  • 782
  • Svend Hansen et al.

Ages23 and modern times.24 The Digital Atlas of Innovations can make not only prehistoric and ancient innovations visible, but also those from later periods.
The social implementation of technologies, for example, is of vital importance in the spread of innovations,25 while continuous innovations can permanently damage a society. Moreover, the adaptation and diffusion of innovation requires consent about its usefulness. Such consent can only be communicated, however, if those innovations which are still in the adaptation stage do not disturb the social system too much. Therefore, one would have to consider whether a long-term interchange exists in successful societies between periods in which innovations emerge in batches and periods in which the return to tradition helps a group stabilize the social reproduction again.
The ability of innovation is a feature of all human societies. Some societies succeed, however, in developing innovative technologies that result in dramatic changes. In the long term, innovations possibly bring about a measurable improvement of living conditions (lower child mortality, increase in life expectancy). In the short term, however, dramatic worsening is possible, too,26 since technologies are interwoven with social infrastructure in many and varied ways. This network is disturbed by innovations so that a society which is continually changing is soon confronted with social problems: Because missionaries distributed steel axes among adolescents, women and children of the Australian Yir Yoront in the early 20th century, the traditional stone adzes lost their function, not only as a tool, but also in religious contexts and as a status indicator of mature men. With this, the power basis of those groups controlling the distribution of stone adzes immediately collapsed, and steel axes became necessary to assert one’s social position. As a consequence, men forced their wives into prostitution in order to get steel axes, and new exchange systems developed revolving around steel axes.27 The steel axe as part of another world did not, however, colonize the Yir Yoront because more trees could be cut down or this could be done faster, but because how their society valued axes.

3.2 Innovation cycles

Periods in which innovations induce further innovations and permanently change a society have been called “hot” periods by various archaeologists28 following C. Lévi-Strauss29 as opposed to “cold” periods. In the “cold” periods, a society attaches great importance to constancy and stability and is, therefore, less innovative. This insistence on traditions can indeed be advantageous under certain circumstances.30 If this interpretation is true, important innovations appear bundled together and are distributed as a ‘package.’ This, in turn, could mean that the technological differences visible today between archaeologically surviving societies can be traced back to the conditions for communication. Thus, groups with intensive long-distance connections would have had an increased chance of gaining knowledge of innovation packages. Archaeology itself seemed to deliver the evidence since the diffusion of innovations on the Eurasian continent from east to west is considerably less hindered by different climate zones and mountain ranges than is the case between South and North America or throughout Africa.31 Beyond the Ne-

23 Popplow 2010. 24 König 2009. 25 Bijker, Hughes, and Pinch 1989. 26 Schievelbusch 2000. 27 Sharp 1952. 28 E.g.: Bernbeck 2004; Vandkilde 2007. 29 Lévi-Strauss 1972; Lévi-Strauss 1973. 30 Palmer 2010. 31 Harris 1977; Diamnond 1997.

  • The Digital Atlas of Innovations: A Research Program on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity
  • 783

olithic transition, however, this concept reaches its methodological limits. For example, the spread neither of wheeled vehicles nor of copper metallurgy can be explained only by the conditions of the natural environment.32

4 Wheel and wagon – facets of an innovation

There is no need, according to general conviction, to reinvent the wheel. It seems so fundamental that a society without the wheel is difficult to imagine. So far, 2421 pieces of evidence of pre- and protohistoric wheels have been cataloged in our database (Fig. 2).33 The majority of finds has been classified as “real-life objects”, meaning they are parts of actually used wagons, while illustrations and models of wagons only account for about one third of the stock of finds. These finds come, in roughly equal shares, from settlements, graves and the art trade; some wagons have also survived as petroglyphs (rock art) and in hoards. The definition of the time interval from 4000 to 2000 BC makes it clear that the early wagons remain restricted to a triangle between central Europe, India and Siberia (Fig. 3). It takes about 1500 years until the wagon can also be traced in other regions. Looking only at the early wagons, it is apparent, too, that almost half of them are miniature wagons (or parts of them).

Recommended publications
  • Friday, the 19Th of June 09:00 Garcia Sanjuan, Leonardo the Hole in the Doughnut

    Friday, the 19Th of June 09:00 Garcia Sanjuan, Leonardo the Hole in the Doughnut

    monumental landscapes neolithic subsistence and megaliths 09:25 schiesberg, sara; zimmermann, andreas 10:40 coffee break siemens lecture hall bosch conference room Stages and Cycles: The Demography of Populations Practicing 11:00 schiesberg, sara Collective Burials Theories, Methods and Results The Bone Puzzle. Reconstructing Burial Rites in Collective Tombs 09:00 schmitt, felicitas; bartelheim, martin; bueno ramírez, primitiva 09:00 o’connell, michael 09:50 rinne, christoph; fuchs, katharina; kopp, juliane; 11:25 cummings, vicki Just passing by? Investigating in the Territory of the Megalith Builders The pollen evidence for early prehistoric farming impact: towards a better schade-lindig, sabine; susat, julian; krause-kyora, ben The social implications of construction: a consideration of the earliest of the Southern European Plains. The Case of Azután, Toledo. understanding of the archaeological fi eld evidence for Neolithic activity in Niedertiefenbach reloaded: The builders of the Wartberg gallery grave Neolithic monuments of Britain and Ireland 09:25 carrero pazos, miguel; rodríguez casal, antón a. western Ireland 10:15 klingner, susan; schultz, michael 11:50 pollard, joshua Neolithic Territory and Funeral Megalithic Space in Galicia (Nw. Of 09:25 diers, sarah; fritsch, barbara The physical strain on megalithic tomb builders from northern How routine life was made sacred: settlement and monumentality in Iberian Peninsula): A Synthetic Approach Changing environments in a Megalithic Landscape: the Altmark case Germany –results of an
  • Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe

    Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe

    MEGALITHS SOCIETIES LANDSCAPES EARLY MONUMENTALITY AND SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION IN NEOLITHIC EUROPE VOLUME 3 Eds.: Johannes Müller Martin Hinz Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 18 Maria Wunderlich Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der CAU Kiel Megaliths – Societies – Landscapes Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe Volume 3 Proceedings of the international conference »Megaliths – Societies – Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe« (16th–20th June 2015) in Kiel Eds.: Johannes Müller, Martin Hinz, Maria Wunderlich in Kommission Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 2019 Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn und des Institutes für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der CAU zu Kiel Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Redaktion Martin Hinz, Maria Wunderlich & Julia Menne (CAU Kiel) Bildbearbeitung Nicole Schwerdtfeger & UFG-Graphic Department (CAU Kiel) Satz & Grafik Nicole Schwerdtfeger & UFG-Graphic Department (CAU Kiel) Design-Konzept Janine Cordts (CAU Kiel) Umschlaggestaltung Janine Cordts (CAU Kiel) Umschlagfoto Vol. 3: Sara Jagiolla (CAU Kiel) Kapitelfotos Ch. 5, Ch. 6 & Ch. 7: Sara Jagiolla (CAU Kiel) Konferenzfotos Sara Jagiolla (CAU Kiel) ISBN 978-3-7749-4213-4 Titel auch als E-Book (PDF) erhältlich unter www.habelt.de Druck BELTZ Grafische Betriebe GmbH, Bad Langensalza Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Detailliertere Informationen sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar. © 2019 by UFG CAU Kiel and authors 777 Preface of the Series Editor The DFG Priority Program1400 »Early Monumen- this early workshop continued throughout the years tality and Social Differentiation: On the origin and de- after. In consequence the international conference velopment of Neolithic large-scale buildings and the »Megaliths, Societies, Landscapes« was organized emergence of early complex societies in Northern five years after on a broader scale.
  • Original File Was Neolithicadmixture4.Tex

    Original File Was Neolithicadmixture4.Tex

    Supplementary Information: Parallel ancient genomic transects reveal complex population history of early European farmers Table of Contents Supplementary note 1: Archaeological summary of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the region of today’s Hungary………………………………………………………………………....2 Supplementary note 2: Description of archaeological sites………………………………………..8 Supplementary note 3: Y chromosomal data……………………………………………………...45 Supplementary note 4: Neolithic Anatolians as a surrogate for first European farmers..………...65 Supplementary note 5: WHG genetic structure and admixture……………………………….......68 Supplementary note 6: f-statistics and admixture graphs………………………………………....72 Supplementary note 7: ALDER.....……..…………………………………………………...........79 Supplementary note 8: Simulations……………………………………………….…...................83 1 Supplementary note 1: Archaeological summary of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the region of today’s Hungary The Carpathian Basin (including the reagion of today’s Hungary) played a prominent role in all prehistoric periods: it was the core territory of one cultural complex and, at the same time, the periphery of another, and it also acted as a mediating or contact zone. The archaeological record thus preserves evidence of contacts with diverse regions, whose vestiges can be found on settlements and in the cemeteries (grave inventories) as well. The earliest farmers arrived in the Carpathian Basin from southeastern Europe ca. 6000–5800 BCE and they culturally belonged to the Körös-Çris (east) and Starčevo (west) archaeological formations [1, 2, 3, 4]. They probably encountered some hunter-gatherer groups in the Carpathian Basin, whose archaeological traces are still scarce [5], and bioarchaeological remains are almost unknown from Hungary. The farmer communities east (Alföld) and west (Transdanubia) of the Danube River developed in parallel, giving rise around 5600/5400 BCE to a number of cultural groups of the Linearband Ceramic (LBK) culture [6, 7, 8].
  • Morphology of Modern Arrowhead Tips on Human Skin Analog*

    Morphology of Modern Arrowhead Tips on Human Skin Analog*

    J Forensic Sci, January 2018, Vol. 63, No. 1 doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13502 PAPER Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com PATHOLOGY/BIOLOGY LokMan Sung,1,2 M.D.; Kilak Kesha,3 M.D.; Jeffrey Hudson,4,5 M.D.; Kelly Root,1 and Leigh Hlavaty,1,2 M.D. Morphology of Modern Arrowhead Tips on Human Skin Analog* ABSTRACT: Archery has experienced a recent resurgence in participation and has seen increases in archery range attendance and in chil- dren and young adults seeking archery lessons. Popular literature and movies prominently feature protagonists well versed in this form of weap- onry. Periodic homicide cases in the United States involving bows are reported, and despite this and the current interest in the field, there are no manuscripts published on a large series of arrow wounds. This experiment utilizes a broad selection of modern arrowheads to create wounds for comparison. While general appearances mimicked the arrowhead shape, details such as the presence of abrasions were greatly influenced by the design of the arrowhead tip. Additionally, in the absence of projectiles or available history, arrowhead injuries can mimic other instruments causing penetrating wounds. A published resource on arrowhead injuries would allow differentiation of causes of injury by forensic scientists. KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic pathology, compound bow, arrow, broadhead, morphology Archery, defined as the art, practice, and skill of shooting arrows While investigations into the penetrating ability of arrows with a bow, is indelibly entwined in human history. Accounts of have been published (5), this article is the first large-scale study the bow and arrow can be chronicled throughout human civiliza- evaluating the cutaneous morphology of modern broadhead tion from its origins as a primary hunting tool, migration to utiliza- arrow tip injuries in a controlled environment.
  • 2Nd Half of the 5Th Millennium BC) and Their Aftermath

    2Nd Half of the 5Th Millennium BC) and Their Aftermath

    Syria Archéologie, art et histoire 90 | 2013 Dossier : Recherches actuelles sur l’occupation des périphéries désertiques de la Jordanie aux périodes protohistoriques Disappeared by Climate Change. The Shepherd nd Cultures of Qulban Ceni Murra (2 Half of the th 5 Millennium BC) and their Aftermath Hans Georg K. Gebel et Hamzeh M. Mahasneh Édition électronique URL : https://journals.openedition.org/syria/1739 DOI : 10.4000/syria.1739 ISSN : 2076-8435 Éditeur IFPO - Institut français du Proche-Orient Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 janvier 2013 Pagination : 127-158 ISBN : 9782351593905 ISSN : 0039-7946 Référence électronique Hans Georg K. Gebel et Hamzeh M. Mahasneh, « Disappeared by Climate Change. The Shepherd Cultures of Qulban Ceni Murra (2nd Half of the 5th Millennium BC) and their Aftermath », Syria [En ligne], 90 | 2013, mis en ligne le 01 juillet 2016, consulté le 25 août 2021. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/syria/1739 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/syria.1739 © Presses IFPO DISAPPEARED BY CLIMATE CHANGE THE SHEPHERD CULTURES OF QULBAN BENI MURRA (2nd HALF OF THE 5th MILLENNIUM BC) AND THEIR AFTERMATH 1 Hans Georg K. GEBEL 2 & Hamzeh M. MAHASNEH 3 Résumé – Le phénomène funéraire attesté dans le sud-est de la Jordanie témoigne d’une phase d’occupation méconnue de la région au cours du milieu de l’Holocène, en lien avec un mode de vie pastoral basé sur l’exploitation des ressources en eau des puits (« Early Mid-Holocene pastoral well cultures », 4500-4000 BC). À titre d’hypothèse, cette phase précoce d’occupation a pu aboutir au développement des premières « cultures des oasis » de la péninsule Arabique (« Oasis cultures », 4000-35000/3000 BC).
  • Museum of New Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies

    Museum of New Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies

    MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES THE GLOFUETA PROJECT: TEST EXCAVATIONS AT EIGHT PREHISTORIC SITESBETWEEN GLORIETA AND PECOS, NEW MEXICO Yvonne Roye Oakes with a contribution by James L. Moore Submitted by David A. Phillips, Jr., Ph.D. Principal Investigator ARCHAEOLOGY NOTES NO. 45 SANTA FE 1991 NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY In 1985 and 1986, the Research Section of the Laboratory of Anthropology, Museum of New Mexico, tested ten sites within the limits of the proposed reconstruction on State Road 50 between Glorieta and Pecos, New Mexico (New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department [NMSHTD] Project No. RS-1416[1]) and one site within the project limits at the Glorieta Interchange (NMSHTD Project No. IR-025-5[63]297). The purpose of the testing program was to evaluate the nature and extent of subsurface and surface remains on the sites and to determine their potential to yield significant information on the prehistory and history of the area. Project sites included two historic residential sites, a Pueblo fieldhouse, three rock shelters, and four lithic or sherd artifact scatters. One historic site, Pigeon’s Ranch (LA 49315), is on the National Register of Historic Places. It was the location of an 1850s stagestop on the Santa Fe Trail, a Civil War battle, and a trading post and tourist stop in the 1920s and 1930s. The other historic structure consists of a portion of a house foundation within the right-of-way. The two historic sites (LA 49265 and LA 49315) will be discussed in another volume. Remains of a small Pueblo IV fieldhouse were uncovered during the testing program.
  • Jewellery, Watches, Antiquities and Objects of Vertu 17 March 2020 J15

    Jewellery, Watches, Antiquities and Objects of Vertu 17 March 2020 J15

    DIX • NOONAN • WEBB JEWELLERY, WATCHES, ANTIQUITIES AND OBJECTS OF VERTU 17 MARCH 2020 J15 VERTU AND OBJECTS OF ANTIQUITIES WATCHES, WEBB JEWELLERY, • DIX • NOONAN www.dnw.co.uk 16 Bolton Street Mayfair London W1J 8BQ 020 7016 1700 [email protected] Jewellery, Watches, Antiquities and Objects of Vertu Tuesday 17th March 2020 at 1pm BOARD of DIRECTORS Pierce Noonan Chairman and CEO 020 7016 1700 [email protected] Nimrod Dix Deputy Chairman 020 7016 1820 [email protected] Robin Greville Chief Technology Officer 020 7016 1750 [email protected] Christopher Webb Head of Coin Department 020 7016 1801 [email protected] AUCTION and CLIENT SERVICES Philippa Healy Head of Administration (Associate Director) 020 7016 1775 [email protected] Emma Oxley Accounts and Viewing 020 7016 1701 [email protected] Christopher Mellor-Hill Head of Client Liaison (Associate Director) 020 7016 1771 [email protected] Chris Finch Hatton Client Liaison 020 7016 1754 [email protected] James King Head of Shipping and Facilities 020 7016 1833 [email protected] JEWELLERY, WATCHES and OBJECTS of VERTU Frances Noble Head of Department (Associate Director) 020 7016 1781 [email protected] Laura Smith Specialist 020 7016 1782 [email protected] Jessica Edmonds Junior Specialist and Auction Clerk 020 7016 1782 [email protected] COINS, TOKENS and COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS Christopher Webb Head of Department (Director) 020 7016 1801 [email protected] Peter Preston-Morley Specialist (Associate Director) 020 7016 1802 [email protected] Jim Brown Specialist 020 7016 1803 [email protected] Tim Wilkes Specialist
  • Ötzi the Iceman Worksheets

    Ötzi the Iceman Worksheets

    From mummies to mitochondria, skeletons to sequencing, Denisovans to DNA, molecules to murder…. Our human Inheritance Understanding our genetic ancestry & what makes us human featuring Ötzi the iceman Look at the mummy! Did you know: The Making of Ötzi’s Replica What type of images were used to make Ötzi’s ancient tattoos were the 3D print of Ötzi? made by making fine cuts in his skin and then rubbing charcoal in the cuts. Where in Italy is the real mummy stored? Ancient Ink Ötzi has 57 visible tattoos in the form of small lines and crosses. (4 cannot be seen.) Fatal Wound FIND and DRAW as many tattoos as you can on the illustration of the iceman’s mummy Evidence suggests that Ötzi was shot by (each line counts as a single tattoo; a cross an arrow, and this caused his death. would count as two). MARK the location of the arrow wound with an “X” on the Ötzi to the right. Damage CIRCLE the area of the mummy that is damaged. Did you know? The arrowhead that caused Ötzi to Did you know: bleed to death wasn’t This damage was caused discovered until 10 years after accidentally by a power tool the mummy was found. during the recovery of the mummy in 1991. Ötzi the iceman Read the panels! Did you know? Did you know? A paper published in 2016 All except one of Ötzi’s shows that Otzi also carried H. fingernails were missing; a pylori, a bacteria associated single detached nail was with stomach ulcers! found by his body! DNA Analysis Scientists identified DNA from different bacteria One of Ötzi’s fingernails had horizontal ridges and other living things.
  • Prehistoric Artefact Box: Complete Box

    Prehistoric Artefact Box: Complete Box

    PREHISTORIC ARTEFACT BOX PREHISTORIC ARTEFACT BOX: COMPLETE BOX 1 Antler Retoucheur 11 Leather Cup 2 Flint Retoucheur 12 Flint Scrapers [1 large & 4 x small] in pouch 3 Hammer Stone 13 Flint Arrowheads [x2] in box/pouch 4 Comb 14 Bronze Age Flint arrowhead in pouch 5 Needle & Thread 15 Hair Ornaments [x 2] in pouch 6 Slate Arrow 16 Mesolithic Arrow 7 Small Knife 17 Goddess Figurine 8 Resin Stick 18 Antler Tool 9 Bead Necklace 19 Prehistoric Loan Box- Risk Assessment 10 Hand Axe and Leather Covers 20 Artefact Box Booklet-Prehistoric Acknowledgements The artefacts were made by Emma Berry and Andrew Bates of Phenix Studios Ltd of Hexham, Northumberland. http://www.phenixstudios.com/ ARTEFACT BOX: PREHISTORIC Item: 1 Brief Description: Antler Retoucheur Further Information: This tool is made from antler. It was used to retouch flints-that means it was used to sharpen it by carefully chipping away small flakes away from a stone tool’s edge that had become blunt through use. Mesolithic and Neolithic flaked tools were made with a lot of retouching, as they were very small and very fine. Even Palaeolithic tools could be sharpened by retouching. Explore: The periods of prehistory covered in this artefact box are called: the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Ages (the Old, Middle and New Stone Ages) and the Bronze Age. What “Age” do we live in today? The Steel Age? The Plastic Age? Is everything we use made of this material? To find out more about each of these Stone Age periods follow this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zpny34j#z98q2hv ARTEFACT BOX: PREHISTORIC Item: 2 Brief Description: Flint Retoucheur Further Information: The tip of this tool was made from antler and the handle is lime wood.
  • Megalithic Routes E.V. Brochure 2017

    Megalithic Routes E.V. Brochure 2017

    A Culture Route of the Council of Europe Megalithic Routes Karlssteine, Osnabrück (D) Karlssteine, Osnabrück (D) Passage grave Ekornavallen (SE) 4 5 Megalithic culture: A reminder of our common European cultural heritage Ladies and Gentlemen, The phenomenon of megalithic cultures can be found right across the European This remarkable aim would have been unthinkable without the tireless efforts of continent and in the majority of the 28 member states of the European Union. volunteers and dedicated individuals. I am deeply honoured to be patron of These cultural places, many more than 5.000 years old, reveal a common back - “Megalithic Routes e.V.”, which can help us grow closer together as Europeans. ground and serve as a reminder of our common European cultural heritage. It is I am convinced that only by knowing our common European past, we Europeans our responsibility as Europeans to guard these megalithic monuments and to may know who we are and may decide where we want to go in the future. teach the characteristics and purposes of these megalith-building cultures in order to frame this part of our history for future generations. With my best wishes, In order to raise awareness of megalithic cultures, the project “Megalithic Routes e.V.” was brought into being. The intention behind the initiative is to not only ex - plore and protect the monuments, but also to rediscover the touristic value of the findings. This idea to develop a cultural path that runs through megalithic sites in several European countries is the only one of its kind, and is of immeasurable Dr.
  • Sticks, Stones and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a European Perspective" Anthropological Review, 2012; 75(2):137-144

    Sticks, Stones and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a European Perspective" Anthropological Review, 2012; 75(2):137-144

    PUBLISHED VERSION Wiesław Lorkiewicz and Elżbieta Żądzińska Comments on the book "Sticks, stones and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective" Anthropological Review, 2012; 75(2):137-144 © 2012 Polish Anthtropological Society. This content is Open Access. Published version available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10044-012-0013-3 PERMISSIONS http://degruyteropen.com/you/journal-author/copyright-and-license-statement/ http://degruyteropen.com/you/journal-author/repository-policy/ 18 May 2016 http://hdl.handle.net/2440/89409 Sticks, stones, and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective Wiesław Lorkiewicz and Elżbieta Żądzińska ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW • Vol. 75 (2), 137–144 (2012) Comments on the book “Sticks, stones and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective” Wiesław Lorkiewicz and Elżbieta Żądzińska Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of­­ Łódź, Poland Sticks, stones, and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective Edited by Rick Schulting and Linda Fibiger, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 392, ISBN 978-0-19-95730-66 Introduction Skeletal injuries observed in human bone remains from archaeological sites have always aroused considerable inter- est due to the interpretational opportu- nities they offer. Among them, particu- larly spectacular are those which are indicative of wounds intentionally in- flicted by means of various weapons (or other implements used as weapons) as a consequence of interpersonal violence.
  • Durham Research Online

    Durham Research Online

    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 10 December 2018 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Chapman, John (2018) 'Climatic and human impact on the environment? : A question of scale.', Quaternary international., 496 . pp. 3-13. Further information on publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.010 Publisher's copyright statement: c 2017 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Quaternary International 496 (2018) 3e13 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint Climatic and human impact on the environment?: A question of scale John Chapman Durham University,