Ohalo 2 is a 23,000 year old hunter-fisher-gatherer that was recovered from a burial at a spectacularly well-preserved archaeological site on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. In 2013, I visited Tel Aviv University to collect data on the human fossils curated in the Department of Anatomy and Anthropology for my doctoral dissertation. While examining the Ohalo 2 skeletal material, I noticed, the missing upper central incisor and a fully healed socket. The teeth immediately surrounding this incisor were present - although a few neighboring teeth were broken postmortem (not surprising for a fossil of this antiquity). The dental wear in the upper jaw was fairly typical of a Late Pleistocene hunter-fisher-gatherer; but when I picked up the mandible, I noticed that the lower incisors had an interesting curvature to their wear plane. This modest "arch-like" pattern of dental wear perfectly matched the position of the missing upper incisor. The overall pattern of dental wear and healed socket was starting to look a lot like the intentional tooth removal - or "ablation" - something that had not been suggested in previous analyses of Ohalo 2. Interestingly, the Natufians - the archaeologically-defined culture that existed some 10,000 years after Ohalo 2 - practiced dental ablation. Could there be a biocultural connection between this Early Epipaleolithic forager and the Late Epipaleolithic Natufians? Ten-thousand years is quite a leap in time, but long-term continuity in some aspects of Epipaleolithic human behavior in southwest Asia had been suggested based on other aspects of the archaeological record. Above: The white arrow points to the tooth that was lost antemortem (in life) as indicated by the healed bone and resorbed socket. The dotted white line shows the uneven plane of wear that indicates that the individual was alive long after the tooth was removed, since dental wear continued to progress - albeit unevenly due to the lack of an occluding upper right central incisor. Red arrows show teeth that are broken and missing postmortem. My colleague, Dr. Sarah A. Lacy, also had the opportunity to study the Ohalo 2 skeletal material in Tel Aviv a few years before me, so we decided to collaborate on an assessment of the Ohalo 2 oral pathological conditions. Our thinking was that a differential diagnosis of the tooth loss may help us understand whether the incisor was lost through the intentional cultural practice of dental ablation or by some other cause. Given the small number of fossils from the Eastern Mediterranean that date to this time period, we also thought it would be an important source of comparative data for researchers interested in Late Pleistocene human paleobiology and behavioral reconstructions. Above: The burial of Ohalo 2 during excavation, a close-up of cast of individual's cranium, and an drawing of the skeletal elements after excavation in laboratory. Image modified from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41492570. In addition to the loss of the upper central incisor, we found a number of other pathological conditions: two carious lesions ("cavities"), pulp exposure, and mild to moderate bone loss around the front teeth. Another cool finding is the probable agenesis of the left upper third molar - "agenesis" means that the tooth never developed at all. We noted that these conditions are not really abnormal for a Late Pleistocene human, but the general state of oral health did not seem to contribute to the loss of the upper incisor. So, if the other oral pathological conditions were unlikely contributors to the loss of the incisor, what about loss through a traumatic event? A bad fall, interpersonal violence, or some other kind of accident could have knocked out Ohalo 2's front tooth. At first, we thought trauma was a good candidate since Ohalo 2 has an absolutely astonishing bony growth in their chest. The growth was due to infection (chronic osteomyelitis) caused by localized trauma to the lower thorax. Could the incisor have also been knocked out at the same time? Possibly, but unlikely. We determined that the tooth was more likely lost in early in life (childhood or early adolescence) by examining factors related to the timing of tooth eruption and expectations regarding progressive dental wear in hunter-gatherers. In contrast, the major thoracic injury was more likely a later life occurrence - and a rather debilitating one for Ohalo 2. Intentional tooth removal - "ablation" - seems to be the best candidate for Ohalo 2's lost incisor. The tooth was probably lost around late childhood/early adolescence - an important period of physical and social maturation for a young person. Indeed, it is around this age that body modification practices often occur, as shown by numerous other examples documented from bioarchaeological and ethnohistoric contexts. Above Left: The occlusal view of the maxillary (upper) teeth of Ohalo 2. The white arrow is pointing to the tooth that was lost antemortem (before death). The bone is resorbed/healed. The red arrows point to teeth that were lost postmortem. Above Right: A line drawing of a Natufian individual from Shukbah showing the empty space (white arrow) where a tooth was lost before death in the exact location that is seen in Ohalo 2. Photograph by JC Willman. Line drawing modified from Keith 1931. Since the Natufians also practiced incisor ablation, and many behavioral trends among the Natufians seem to have deep antiquity within the Epipaleolithic of the region, we thought it was interesting to also see this biocultural practice portrayed by Ohalo 2 as well. With so few fossils dated to this time period in southwest Asia, it is hard to say whether or not this is truly a biocultural trend spanning the Early and Late phases of the Epipaleolithic, but it is an exciting possibility. Hopefully, future discoveries will shed more light on the antiquity and patterning of Epipaleolithic body modification practices in southwest Asia. Until then, Ohalo 2 represents one of the earliest probable cases of dental ablation in western Eurasia, and more evidence for the embodiment of human social identities through intentional body modification practices among Late Pleistocene peoples. References and further reading:This study:
Access the paper for free until 19 July 2020 here: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1b98C6hTLQdsfi Willman JC, and Lacy SA. 2020. Oral pathological conditions of an Early Epipaleolithic human from Southwest Asia: Ohalo II H2 as a probable case of intentional dental ablation. International Journal of Paleopathology 30:68-76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2020.04.001. Additional references: Bocquentin F. 2011. Avulsions dentaires et identité régionale chez les Natoufiens. Tüba-Ar (Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology) 14:261-270. Link Bocquentin F, Crevecoeur I, and Semal P. 2013. Artificial modification of the central upper incisors of Homo 4 (Plot XX J burial). In: Edwards PC, editor. Wadi Hammeh 27, an Early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan. Leiden: Brill. p 383-387. Link Edwards PC. 2015. Natufian interactions along the Jordan Valley. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147(4):272-282, doi.org/10.1179/1743130115Y.0000000001. Hershkovitz I, Edelson G, Spiers M, Arensburg B, Nadel D, and Levi B. 1993. Ohalo II man—unusual findings in the anterior rib cage and shoulder girdle of a 19000‐year‐old specimen. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3(3):177-188, https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1390030304. Hershkovitz I, Speirs MS, Frayer D, Nadel D, Wish-Baratz S, and Arensburg B. 1995. Ohalo II H2: A 19,000-year-old skeleton from a water-logged site at the Sea of Galilee, Israel. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 96(3):215-234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330960302. Keith A. 1931. New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man. London: Williams & Norgate. Link Maher LA, Richter T, and Stock JT. 2012. The pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: long-term behavioral trends in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 21(2):69-81, https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21307. Nadel D. 1994. Levantine Upper Palaeolithic–Early Epipalaeolithic burial customs: Ohalo II as a case study. Paléorient 20(1):113-121, www.jstor.org/stable/41492570. Snir A, Nadel D, Groman-Yaroslavski I, Melamed Y, Sternberg M, Bar-Yosef O, and Weiss E. 2015. The Origin of Cultivation and Proto-Weeds, Long Before Neolithic Farming. PloS one 10(7):e0131422, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131422. Trinkaus E. 2018. The palaeopathology of the Ohalo 2 Upper Paleolithic human remains: A reassessment of its appendicular robusticity, humeral asymmetry, shoulder degenerations, and costal lesion. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 28(2):143-152, https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2640.
0 Comments
The practice of body modification - often related to the expression of individual or group-level social identity - is not uncommon in prehistory. However, body modification can be difficult to identify since so much of it is ephemeral or not likely to preserve in such a way that we can identity it as related to adorning or modifying the body. For instance, many forms of body modification lack archaeologically-visibility because they only affected soft tissues (body painting, hair style, ear and nose piercings, tattoos, scarification, etc.) which are only preserved in very specific cases (e.g., bog bodies, mummies). However, body modification that affects the human bone and/or teeth of once living people is more likely to preserve in the archaeological record. Examples include cranial shaping/modification, dental ablation (the removal of teeth for cultural/aesthetic reasons), intentional tooth filing or chipping, and facial piercings (labrets) that abrade the teeth. As a biological anthropologist specializing in dental wear, I have come across a lot of very interesting cases of intentional dental modification (e.g., ablation, chipping, filing) and some cases of unintentional dental wear - my favorite being that caused by the prolonged wearing of labrets. These cases always peak my interest because they are great opportunities to discuss aspects of human identity and lived experience in prehistoric contexts - something that is often quite difficult to elaborate on in Pleistocene contexts.
I enlisted the help of my colleague Raquel Hernando to analyze the dental wear, and together with Isabelle and Marie, we wrote up a manuscript for the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. An initial difficulty we faced was context. There is no reliable direct date for OH1 and many doubt an earlier date of 16,920 ± 920 BP. We got around this issue with a morphological assessment of biological affinity using the relatively complete OH1 mandible. We showed that OH1 mandible more closely matches the morphology of other Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene fossils from Africa, but is outside of the variation seen in recent humans. Earlier analyses of Late Pleistocene fossils (e.g., Ishango, Lukenya Hill) also show that aspects of cranial and postcranial morphology of OH1 follow a Late Pleistocene rather than recent human morphological pattern as well. So, the various morphological assessments provide good support for a Late Pleistocene age for the OH1 skeleton. While an exact date isn't possible, the morphological similarity to other Pan-African fossils from the Late Pleistocene suggests that OH1 dates to somewhere in the ballpark of 20,000-12,000 year ago. We then described the pattern of wear on the mandibular front teeth and the cheek teeth. We showed that the front teeth exhibit a pattern of wear that resembles the use of an large facial piercing, or labret, in the lower lip. We suggest that the more surprising facets on the cheek teeth correspond to labrets being worn through piercings in the cheeks. We concluded that OH1 likely wore three different facial piercings - one through the lower lip and one in each cheek. So far, this has never been described paleoanthropological or bioarchaeological contexts in Africa. This is exciting because it adds to the known diversity of body modification practices already documented in Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Africa. The dominate pattern in the Terminal Pleistocene (20-12,000 years ago) is the ablation of teeth - especially in northeast and northwest Africa; but by the Early Holocene (10-7,000 years ago) some evidence for labret-use, in addition to ablation, begins to show up in the African archaeological record. By the Middle Holocene (7-3,000 years ago) we begin to see ablation, labret-use, and chipping/filing throughout Africa. This diversity of body modification practices is interesting because it may reflect the movements and interactions of prehistoric peoples through time and space. Above left: An artistic reconstruction (by Lou-Octavia Mørch) of the proposed pattern of labret piercings worn by OH1. Above rigt: the front and side view of the incisors and canines. The darker areas of enamel on the teeth is the exposed dentin that we propose was caused by a lower lip labret. Body modification often marks specific events related to social maturation (e.g., puberty, marriage, adult status, etc.) during an individual's life. This all means that labret wear on teeth of OH1 provides indirect evidence for personal adornment that is probably tied to social practices and individual or group identity. We hope that this research stimulates new research on human body modification and social identities in the Pleistocene as it has the opportunity to reveal a greater depth of understanding about the social lives of past peoples as more case studies are available for intra- and inter-regional comparisons. Further reading and references:This study:
Willman JC, Hernando R, Matu M, Crevecoeur I. 2020. Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity and intentional body modification. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24007. Additional references: Crevecoeur I, Brooks A, Ribot I, Cornelissen E, and Semal P. 2016. Late Stone Age human remains from Ishango (Democratic Republic of Congo): New insights on Late Pleistocene modern human diversity in Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 96:35-57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.04.003. Matu M, Crevecoeur I, and Huchet JB. 2017. Taphonomy and Paleoichnology of Olduvai Hominid 1 (OH1), Tanzania. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27(5):785-800, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oa.2593. Parsche F. 1993. Peculiarities on the incisors in the mandible of the skull Olduvai I. HOMO 44(1):30-36. Tryon CA, Crevecoeur I, Faith JT, Ekshtain R, Nivens J, Patterson D, Mbua EN, and Spoor F. 2015. Late Pleistocene age and archaeological context for the hominin calvaria from GvJm-22 (Lukenya Hill, Kenya). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417909112. I had the great privilege of contributing to a new article published in PLOS ONE yesterday that was coordinated by my colleague, Dr. Kristin Krueger, of Loyola University Chicago. The piece has been summarized nicely by Katherine J. Wu at PBS NOVA. I provide a short summary and a few additional thoughts here. Neandertal and early modern human anterior tooth-use Reconstructions of Neandertal behavior frequently call attention to their anterior tooth (incisor and canine) wear. Some incredible examples of extreme anterior dental wear are documented among some of the earliest well-published Neandertal fossils (for example: La Ferrassie and Forbe's Quarry) and the iconic photo by Erik Trinkaus of Shanidar 1's anterior dental wear (see below) is widely used to illustrate the phenomenon. This high degree of wear in the front teeth is most frequently interpreted as evidence that Neandertals used their "teeth-as-tools" or as a "third hand" regularly. In fact, it's often rare not to see a behavioral reconstruction of Neandertal that doesn't depict them using their "teeth as tools" in a museum display, artistic reconstruction, and television popular science documentaries. Above left: Shanidar 1 Neandertal with heavy anterior tooth wear (Photo: Erik Trinkaus). Above right: Artistic reconstruction of a Neandertal using its anterior teeth (as a "third hand") to clamp down on a piece of meat while they cut it into smaller pieces using a stone tool with their free hand. This behavior is also routinely called "stuff and cut" - a phrase that can be attributed to C. Loring Brace. Above: Artistic reconstruction of a Neandertal group from El Sidron Cave featuring a Neandertal woman using her teeth to assist in hide scraping activities. Another behavior that leaves traces on teeth is the use of toothpicks which I discuss elsewhere. Artwork by Emmanuel Roudier. The robust build of Neandertal skulls and their large anterior teeth are a stark contrast to the smaller teeth and more gracile skulls of modern humans. These morphological differences were coupled with the observations of heavy anterior dental wear, and many researchers saw aspects of Neandertal cranial and dental morphology as adaptations that helped dissipate the high bite forces and/or repetitive loading of the anterior teeth and face when engaging in the use of teeth-as-tools. This "Anterior Dental Loading Hypothesis" has held a prominent position in Neandertal research. But why use your teeth as tools? The technological capacities of the Neandertals were (and often still are) considered impoverished or inferior to those of Upper Paleolithic early modern humans. Thus, early modern humans were thought to possess a degree of technological ingenuity that reduced morphological selection for the robust cranial and dental features found in Neandertals and their predecessors. The anterior dental loading hypothesis and ideas of "Neandertal inferiority/modern human superiority" have been challenged on a number of grounds. However, dental wear can provide direct evidence for how the anterior dentition was used among Neandertals and early modern humans. However, few studies directly compare Neandertals and early modern human dental wear, and none have used dental microwear texture analysis to test these ideas. Above: The Shanidar 1 Neandertal (left) compared to an early modern human from Předmostí (right). Many cranial features, and the front teeth in particular, are quite large and "robustly built" in Neandertals but reduced in size and "gracile" in early modern humans. This is where our new paper jumps into the discussion. The research, coordinated by Dr. Krueger, uses dental microwear texture analysis of the surfaces of anterior teeth to explore similarities and differences in Neandertal and early modern human tooth-using behaviors. The results were surprising given the amount of previous research emphasizing behavioral and morphological differences between the two groups. We compared Neandertal and early modern human anterior dental microwear textures to each other as well as to a large comparative databases for human groups with considerable variation in temporal, ecological, geographic, and cultural backgrounds (see map below). While I have written elsewhere about how molar microwear texture can be used to reconstruct diets in Homo sapiens and Neandertals, the microwear textures on the anterior teeth are somewhat different. Incisors and canines are not only involved in the breakdown of food but are frequently used in a variety of non-dietary tasks. Therefore, dental wear on front teeth is a palimpsest of behavioral signatures related to dietary and non-dietary (using the “teeth-as-tools”) behaviors as well as various environmental factors (often related to the presence or absence of grit and dust). The excellent contextual information available for the human groups used for comparative purposes includes information on the diet, non-dietary behaviors, environment, and other factors that we use to interpret the results obtained for the Neandertals and early modern humans. Above: Map showing the location of human groups used to compare and contextuale the dental microwear texture results for Neandertals and early modern humans. Map is from Krueger 2015. Interestingly, we found that the Neandertals and early modern humans exhibited very similar anterior dental microwear texture results. The values for both of these Pleistocene human groups were closest to those of the Point Hope Tigara hunter-gatherers from Alaska in our comparative sample. The Tigara are known to have used their anterior teeth in a variety of non-dietary, clamping and grasping behaviors such as as processing/softening animal hides and working sinew into thread. Thus, one way of interpreting the data for Neandertals and early modern humans were engaging in a similar range of clamping and grasping behaviors with the front teeth. Clothing and hide processing are reasonable behaviors documented in bioarchaeological and ethnohistoric contexts. Above: Scatter plot of Neandertal and early modern human dental microwear texture values (Tfv = textural fill volume & epLsar = anisotropy) with 95% confidence interval ellipses. Note the extensive overlap in variation. Above: Means and 95% confidence intervals for textural fill volume (Tfv) and anisotropy (epLsar) for the Neandertal, early modern human, and Holocene/ethnohistoric comparative groups. Note the closeness of the means Tigara group to the Pleistocene humans. The colloquial meaning of "neandertal" reflects the long-held notion of a major behavioral gap that separates the Neandertals from "us". However, the scientific and public perception of the Neandertals is undergoing a sort of renaissance at present. Many behaviors once associated with modern humans - like the controlled use of fire or creation of cave art and personal ornaments - are now documented in Neandertal contexts. The dental evidence presented here is also significant given the long-held view that Neandertals relied so heavily on their bodies, teeth, and brawn over technological and cultural solutions to complete their daily activities whereas early modern humans were thought to use brains, culture, and technology over brawn. However, the dental evidence tells a different story - there's little noticeable difference between the Neandertals and early modern humans in terms of tooth-using behaviors. I am of the opinion that the presumption of a major behavioral gap has persisted for so long because early modern humans were so infrequently compared directly to Neandertals in so many analyses. Instead, Holocene and/or ethnohistoric peoples were generally used (and sometimes still are) as proxies for early modern humans from the Pleistocene. While it should be obvious that historical and contemporary hunter-gatherers from disparate locations (common examples come from East and South Africa, the Arctic, and Australia) are not equivalent to Ice Age hunter-gatherers from Europe, uncritical comparisons were (and occasionally still are) the norm in paleoanthropological research. The work presented here shows how direct comparisons between Neandertals and early modern humans blur the divisions once thought to exist for anterior tooth-using behaviors. Whereas the data from recent human groups can be used to refine interpretations of Pleistocene behavior rather than be used as proxies for the early modern human behavior. Lastly, this publication is available freely (open access) and all data is freely downloadable in the online supplemental information. This was a really fun piece to contribute to and I am really proud of how it turned out. Many thanks to the first author for the chance to collaborate! Really looking forward to seeing what research Dr. Krueger sinks her teeth into next.... References FREE FREE FREE DOWNLOAD!
Krueger KL, Willman JC, Matthews GJ, Hublin J-J, and Pérez-Pérez A. 2019. Anterior tooth-use behaviors among early modern humans and Neandertals. PLOS ONE 14(11):e0224573, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224573. Krueger KL. 2015. Reconstructing diet and behavior in bioarchaeological groups using incisor microwear texture analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 1:29-37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2014.10.002. Krueger KL, and Ungar PS. 2009. Incisor microwear textures of five bioarcheological groups. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 20(5):549-560, dx.doi.org/10.1002/oa.1093. Krueger KL, Ungar PS, Guatelli-Steinberg D, Hublin J-J, Pérez-Pérez A, Trinkaus E, and Willman JC. 2017. Anterior dental microwear textures show habitat-driven variability in Neandertal behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 105:13-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.01.004. In 2013, I had the opportunity to study human fossils from the site of Riparo Fredian in Tuscany as part of my dissertation fieldwork funded by the Leakey Foundation. The human remains were being re-analyzed at the time by researchers at the University of Florence under the direction of Jacopo Moggi-Cecchi. At the end of 2018, a revision of the human skeletal series from Riparo Fredian was published in the open access journal Alpine and Mediterranean Quaternary that followed-up on an earlier paper describing the a probable case of “early dentistry” for one of these Late Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers (Fredian 5) in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Location of Riparo Fredian in Northern Tuscany. The original assessment of the Fredian fossils described 39 isolated teeth and 3 postcranial remains. However, the new paper notes that 18 of the teeth were anatomically misidentified, 2 teeth were not human, and only 2 of 3 of the postcranial remains could be securely attributed to humans. Furthermore, the new analysis identified 2 new human teeth among the remains. Among the fossils, there are at least 2 infants, 2 young adults, and 1-2 mature adults. We cannot be certain about the mature adults because the very worn anterior (incisor and canine) teeth of Fredian 5 and three lesser-worn molars (Fredian 4) could belong to the same individual. The very worn upper incisors and canines from Fredian 5. Not that the pulp chambers of the central incisors are exposed. An earlier paper (Oxilia et al., 2017) describes the evidence for prehistoric dentistry associated with this pathology. This short manuscript is another example of the useful information that can be obtained when we re-examine old archaeological and skeletal collections. I have a feeling there are many more exciting papers to come out on Italian Late Upper Paleolithic human paleobiology as more of these skeletal collections from older excavations are re-assessed in the future. References:
Boschian G, Mallegni F, Tozzi C. 1995. The Epigravettian and Mesolithic site of Fredian Shelter (N Tuscany). Quaternaria Nova, 5, 45-80. Oxilia G, Fiorillo F, Boschin F, Boaretto E, Apicella SA, Matteucci C, Panetta D, Pistocchi R, Guerrini F, Margherita C, Andretta M, Sorrentino R, Arrighi S, Dori I, Mancuso G, Crezzini J, Riga A, Serrangeli MC, Vazzana A, Salvadori P, Vandini M, Tozzi C, Moroni A, Feeney RNM, Willman JC, Benazzi S, Moggi-Cecchi J. 2017. The dawn of dentistry in the Late Upper Paleolithic: An early case of pathological intervention at Riparo Fredian. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 163(3):446-461, doi:doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23216. OPEN ACCESS! Riga A, Dori I, Vierin S, Boschian G, Tozzi C, Willman JC, Moggi-Cecchi J. 2018. At the Upper Paleolithic – Mesolithic boundary: revision of the human remains from Riparo Fredian (Molazzana, Lucca, Italy). Alpine and Mediterranean Quaternary 31(1):49-57, doi:https://doi.org/10.26382/AMQ.2018.04. Last week I had the opportunity to attend the XVIIe Congrès Mondial UISPP - Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques in Paris, France where I participated in Session XXXI-1 Through time, space and species: implication of new discoveries, technological developments and data diffusion improvement in Biological Anthropology organized by Dominique Grimaud-Hervé, Carlos Lorenzo, Julie Arnaud. I presented collaborative work synthsizing research on the "Non-alimentary tooth-use in European Prehistory". The presentation brought together data across a wide span of time and space that have been studied so far by my colleagues (Alejandro Romero, Eulàlia Subirà, and Marina Lozano) and me. Much of the data we presented will contribute to the IDENTITIES Project.
Last week I attended the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropology in Austin, Texas. I presented research in a session called Tooth Wear in Evolutionary and Biocultural Perspectives that was organized by James T. Watson and Christopher W. Schmidt. I presented on the "Dental microwear texture analysis of the Late Upper Paleolithic/Neolithic humans at Tam Hang (Northern Laos)" . The research is a collaborative effort between myself and Christopher W. Schmidt, Ashley Remy, Laura Shackelford, and Fabrice Demeter that investigates how microscopic wear textures on the occlusal surfaces of molars reflects dietary variation within this group of foragers (and food-producers/farmers - see below) from the tropical environments of southeast Asia at the end of the Ice Age. Examples of 2D (grey) and 3D (color) dental microwear textures. The color differences help visualize the microwear on the tooth surfaces. Several variables are derived from the microscopic images to understand individual and group variation in diet-induced molar microwear. Our study on Tam Hang is a part of the larger "DENTALWEAR Project" directed by Christopher Schmidt at the University of Indianapolis. The DENTALWEAR Project compiles a massive dataset of microwear textures that encompass a large range of dietary variation. A global sampling of peoples practicing forms of foraging, farming, and pastoralist socioeconomic strategies provides a comparative framework for inferring aspects of dietary variation in prehistoric groups - like Tam Hang. Our results showed a high degree of variation in the microwear textures among the Tam Hang individuals. This could mean that the individuals exhibited broad spectrum foraging strategies typical of many hunter-gatherer groups at the end of the Ice Age and into the Holocene. This basically means that the people from Tam Hang probably had a wide dietary breadth - including a large range of animal and plant foods. However, some of the burials at Tam Hang may be intrusive. When the Neolithic (food-producing or agriculturalist) peoples of later periods settled in the region, they may have dug down into the Late Upper Paleolithic levels of the site when burying their dead. The skeletal material from Tam Hang was originally excavated during the 1930's, so it is difficult to reconstruct just how much mixing of the Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic archaeological contexts may have occurred. Therefore, what we think is "broad spectrum foraging" could also be an artifact of having samples from two different time periods mixed together. Future research will attempt to sort out this out. For anyone interested in the original abstract from the meeting: The human burials from Tam Hang provide a rare opportunity to study Late Pleistocene human paleobiology in a non-Western Eurasian context. As such, this study addresses dietary variation at Tam Hang using dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA). A white-light confocal profiler was used to examine phase II wear facets on molar casts following standard procedures. Complexity (Asfc), anisotropy (epLsar), and textural fill volume (Tfv) were calculated using scale-sensitive fractal analysis software (Sfraxâ and Toothfraxâ). Seven individuals had well-preserved microwear and were compared to previously published Pleistocene and Holocene groups. Tam Hang mean complexity (1.60) is high, and closest to Natufians and hard-diet foragers (Middle Woodland Indiana). However, two Tam Hang individuals have relatively low complexity (Asfc > 1.0) suggesting they ate softer foods, like meat. Mean anisotropy (0.0028) is low and most like the Vindija Neandertals, hard-diet foragers (Middle Woodland Indiana), and abrasive diet foragers (Middle-Late Archaic Kentucky). However, one individual has elevated anisotropy (0.0072) indicative of tough or fibrous food consumption. Mean Tfv is relatively low (26,509), but two sub-groupings in the Tam Hang sample indicates within group variation in the consumption of mechanically challenging foods. Overall, the microwear signature at Tam Hang is heterogeneous with some emphasis on hard food consumption, and idiosyncratic variation in meat and tough food consumption. There is no patterning by age, sex, or ablation status. High within sample variation may indicate broad spectrum foraging strategies, but we cannot rule out intrusive Neolithic burials in the Late Upper Paleolithic sample at Tam Hang. In a past paper (with Laura Shackelford and Fabrice Demeter) the practice of incisor ablation (the culturally motivated, intentional extraction of healthy teeth during the life of an individual) was addressed. That paper can be found here or here. Individuals from Tam Hang with a.) two; b.) three, c.) four, and d.) zero ablated teeth. In all cases, intentional extractions are marked with white arrows and the other missing teeth are due to postmortem (non-intentional) damage. Two examples from the University of Indianapolis DENTALWEAR Project are linked below. Both publications are open access:
Schmidt CW, Beach JJ, McKinley JI, and Eng JT. 2016. Distinguishing dietary indicators of pastoralists and agriculturists via dental microwear texture analysis. Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties 4(1):014008. Karriger WM, Schmidt CW, and Smith FH. 2016. Dental microwear texture analysis of Croatian Neandertal molars. PaleoAnthropology 2016:172-184. |
John C. Willman
A place to find updates about my research. Archives
July 2021
Categories
All
|