I had the opportunity contribute to two articles for a special issue of Quaternary International entitled "Not Only Use" that was edited by Juan Luis Fernández-Marchena, Lena Asryan, Antonella Pedergnana, and Andreu Ollé. The issue contains an impressive overview various methodologies used to study wear the burgeoning interest in multidisciplinary efforts to study wear traces (i.e., traceology) of different origins and the processes (i.e., operative chains) involved in manufacture, use, and abandonment of an object that is later recovered by an archaeologist (check out the editorial by Fernández-Marchena et al. for more info). The first article was lead by Raquel Hernando. In short, Hernando was interested in understanding if recent advances in optical microscopy could resurrect its use for the study of human dental microwear. Hernando noted that dental microwear analyses originally used optical microscopy, but it was later replaced by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Eventually confocal microscopy became the favored technology for occlusal dental microwear analysis (i.e., dental microwear texture analysis, or "DMTA"), while SEM is still preferred for buccal microwear analysis. However, Hernando and colleagues note that SEM analyses are costly (we generally pay by the hour to use these microscopes) and the postprocessing of images is also quite time consuming (and exhausting for your eyes!). DMTA is generally quicker, but the microscopes—and software needed for DMTA—is not nearly as widely accessible as SEM. That means costly travel, lodging, and user fees to do DMTA analyses for many of us without local access to equipment. So, why not revisit optical microscopy? Hernando and colleagues point to many advances in optical microscopy that have been explored in the context of traceology. Buccal microwear seemed like the best place to start since it still widely uses SEM. Hernando and colleagues found that OM produces very similar results to traditional SEM methods whether one studies the original tooth or a dental cast of a tooth (see image below). Above: Comparison of scanning electron (SEM) and optical microscopy (OM) images of buccal microwear. Note the excellent resolution in OM. Raquel Hernando and colleagues noted that optical microscopy provides many other advantages over traditional SEM analysis: less expensive equipment with less associated maintenance, wider accessibility of optical microscopes for researchers, less eye fatigue, greater image resolution, 3D appearance of images with greater definition, and relatively quick data acquisition and analysis. A drawback is the need to build up open-access databases for comparitive purposes, but the data produced in this paper marks the beginning of that effort. This study points out the importance of revisiting methodologies with a critical eye, but also how interdisciplinary research—something IPHES takes great pride in—can lead to innovation in allied fields of research. The second article explored the use of gigapixel-like (GPL) images for studying external surfaces of teeth. GPL images make use focus-stacking (extended focus images) and panoramic stitching of microscopic images to create mosaic images with high depth of field using SEM. This “gigapixel-like” (GPL) imaging strategy can be used to create multiscale, high-resolution images of entire, or partial, dental surfaces that can be viewed from a field of view that encompasses an entire tooth surface to high magnification views of dental microstructure, microwear, taphonomic features, among other features. The images have a variety of uses from the communication of results in scientific publications to their use in interactice museum displays and websites or training researchers. Above: simplified outline of focus-stacking and creation of image mosaic to create a gigapixel-like (GPL) image. Above: A GPL image (center) with call-out boxes of varying magnification that indicate different surface features. Descriptions proceed clockwise from upper right corner. Orange rectangle: Medium size antemortem enamel chip with well-worn margins. Green rectangle: Detail of cementoenamel junction and root surface. Subtle perikymata (bottom left quadrant) and striations (upper left quadrant) are visible on the enamel. Subtle postmortem cracking of root surface also evident. Magenta rectangle: Detail of furrow-form hypoplasia with clearly visible perikymata (between white arrows). Black arrow points to dental calculus deposit. White rectangle: Detail of instrumental striation with a right oblique orientation. Blue rectangle: arrows indicate microstriations on labioincisal edge and a well-worn, but small, antemortem enamel chip to the left of the image. While the goal of the publication was to outline the GPL methodology and uses, we also made an interesting discovery from the creation of a GPL image for one of the teeth from the Chalcolithic context (dated to about 4000 years before present) of El Mirador Cave near Burgos, Spain. We found that at least one tooth exhibited a strange discoloration when viewed with the naked eye (see photo below). Microscopic examination revealed that the discoloration is related to enamel erosion—something that is rarely documented in prehistoric contexts. Above: Photo of original tooth with discolored (yellowish) enamel surface. GPL image sampling indicated by black box and GPL image indicated by orange arrow. Zooming in on section 300x shows "honey-comb" appearance of enamel surface. This indicates erosion of the enamel. This study makes me suspect that erosion in teeth from archaeological contexts is much higher than we currently acknowledge, and calls for a need for detailed analyses of the original teeth in conjunction with high magnification analysis for definitive diagnosis. Nonetheless, this is a very interesting (and rather accidental) discovery. More analyses of the El Mirador material are underway. References and further reading These studies:
Additional references:
0 Comments
There is a deep history of archaeological investigation focusing on the Bronze Age El Argar, or Argaric, cultural phenomenon from southeastern Spain. Argaric archaeology is probably most famous for the elaborate settlement structures, well-preserved burials, and evidence for sophisticated metallurgy and material culture. The rich archaeological record and excellent preservation of human remains have provided archaeologists with incredible resources for reconstructing the lifeways of these Bronze Age peoples. Above Left: view of the site of Castellón Alto. By Rafael Jiménez from Córdoba, España - Castellon Alto 2, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21664792. Above Right: examples of grave goods recovered from an Argaric context. By Luis Siret - Siret, H., and Louis Siret (1887). «Les premiers âges du métal dans le sud-est de l'Espagne». Anvers., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1294319 I was recently involved in a collaborative research project on the human remains from the site of Castellón Alto that focused on the dental remains of the individuals buried at the site. As part of his Ph.D. research on the human remains from the site, Àngel Rubio discovered an interesting trend at the site: of the 106 burials examined, the teeth of 5 individuals showed atypical patterns of dental wear (see below). What was even more astounding was that each of those individuals was female. No males had these interesting patterns of wear. Further microscopic analysis conducted by Dr. Marina Lozano provided clues as to what behaviors may have contributed to the unique wear patterns identified on the teeth of these 5 individuals. Above: The 5 female individuals with atypical patterns of dental wear. Red arrows and circles indicate the location of the wear in the photos. Image from the article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105239. The remarkable preservation of organic remains (textiles, wool, plant fibers, etc.) in addition to extensive durable material culture (awls, loom weights, spindle whorl, needles) found at Argaric archaeological sites provided additional clues as to what tasks may have contributed to the unique patterns of dental wear on the 5 women from Castellón Alto. A probable explanation is that at least some of the women at the site were involved in specialized craft production such as textile production, processing of fiber or cordage, basketry, and similar tasks (see illustration below). Ethnohistoric documentation of the use of the teeth for craft production adds additional support that the formation of atypical dental wear in the subset of the women from Castellón Alto was related to craft production. Above: A scene of Argaric life featuring the many of the tasks related to food preparation and craft-production in the foreground. Ilustración: Miguel Salvatierra "Cultura argárica". The rich archaeological record from the Argaric contexts of southeasten Spain is bound to reveal more insights into human social lives and identities of Bronze Age peoples. In this case, analyses have revealed a unique role for at least some of the women buried at the site engaged in. References and further readingThis study:
Lozano M, Jiménez-Brobeil SA, Willman JC, Sánchez-Barba LP, Molina F, and Rubio Á. 2020. Argaric craftswomen: Sex-based division of labor in the Bronze Age southeastern Iberia. Journal of Archaeological Science:105239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105239. Additional references: I must emphasize the great resources at http://www.pastwomen.net/ and the resources on the Argaric culture in particular (http://www.pastwomen.net/objetos/cultura-argarica) for the preparation of this post. The website offers incredible, multi-language resources for the instructors, scholars, and anyone that is curious about the social lives of women in the past. The researchers, artists, and other contributors have really created an incredible resource. 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. Dental microwear analysis is a tried-and-true method of reconstructing the diets of living and extinct animals – including early hominins and Homo sapiens – from prehistory to the present day. Microwear can be thought of as the microscopic “pits” and “scratches” that form on the tooth surfaces as food is chewed. The foods we consume, the ways foods are processed and prepared, and the particles that are ingested with food (e.g., dust and grit from the environment, particles worn off grindstones or milling devices, etc.) all influence the microscopic wear patterns on tooth surfaces. Microwear ”texture” is a way of quantifying wear in three-dimensions using standardized variables that reflect the directionality, size, depth, and other characteristics of enamel microwear (see the example below). Thus, microwear variation by group or individual can reveal a great deal of information concerning diet and past human lifeways. Photosimulations (left) and 3D representations of microwear textures. wear. The top two are from a Natufian forager, the middle two are from a Roman-era farmer from Herculaneum, and the bottom two are from a Mongolian pastoralist. The dark colors are low points and the hot (white/red) are higher points. Contemporary culinary traditions are vast, but prehistoric and historic diets also varied incredibly. In a pre-globalized world, eating local and less mechanically processed foods would have been the norm, local environmental conditions would have had an extensive influence on the types of foods available, and cultural practices would dictate how those foods were prepared. So, the grains, fruits, vegetables, tubers, meat and anything else you can think of stuffing down your gullet are only part of what influences microwear signatures on teeth. Other aspects to consider are whether these foods are wild or domestic, raw or cooked, grilled or boiled, salted or fermented, and so on and so on... One way of teasing out these influences on microwear signatures in archaeological contexts is through the creation of large comparative databases that include human groups with extensive spatial, temporal, environmental, and cultural variation – variation that would, in turn, also influence dietary variability. This is exactly what Christopher Schmidt (University of Indianapolis) and a team of 24 researchers set out to do using a global sample of 719 individuals from 51 archaeological sites (see map below). Locations of groups sampled in the study. Details of chronology, archaeology, subsistence, and more can be found in the original article. Schmidt and colleagues tested three main hypotheses to better understand the utility of microwear texture analysis for paleodietary reconstruction. We (yep, I was a co-author in the study), lumped the individuals studied into 3 general subsistence categories: 450 farmers, 192 foragers, and 77 pastoralists. Foragers gather, hunt, and/or fish for their sustenance; primarily consume non-domesticated foods; and generally process foods to a lesser degree than farming and pastoralist groups. Farmers tend to consume a diet dominated by domesticated plants, most frequently grains; and frequently use more intensive food processing (milling, grinding, boiling, etc.) than foragers which contributes to softer diets. Pastoralists are typically very mobile people relying on animal husbandry. Dietary staples such as cheese, meat, and yogurt are consumed but frequently supplemented with grains. Thus, pastoralists diets are generally soft with some abrasive content. However, these categories are NOT hard-and-fast distinctions. Instead, subsistence variation within these categories is HIGHLY variable, but broad categories allowed us to test for broad differences between groups. We found that important differences are found between the “big three” subsistence categories (see figure below). However, there were also interesting differences between foragers and farmers in the New World and Old World as well as interesting differences through time in the Old World farmers. Scatter Plot with the mean (central point) and standard deviations (lines) of the two microwear variables analyzed in the study. Some broad differences can be seen but the substantial overlap in subsistence groups can also be seen. Without getting into too much detail about the finer differences acknowledged in the study, I’d rather come back to the initial point I made about variability within the macro-categories we are using. Keep in mind that each comparative sample is unique because of the circumstances in which those people lived – e.g., local climate, environments, food availability, and the culinary traditions they practiced among other factors. However, each group also has its own internal variability related to things like age, sex, social status, etc. All of this variation is bound to make for extremely interesting case studies as the human groups in this study are are re-analyzed and published as individual case studies. Aside from being very happy to participate in this study, I am really looking forward to the individual papers that my co-authors will be preparing on the samples they contributed here.
Full Article: Schmidt CW, Remy A, Van Sessen R, Willman J, Krueger K, Scott R, Mahoney P, Beach J, McKinley J, d’Anastasio R, Chiu LW, Buzon M, De Gregory R, Sheridan SG, Eng J, Watson J, Klaus H, Da-Gloria P, Wilson J, Stone A, Sereno P, Droke J, Perash R, Stojanowski C. Herrmann, N. Dental microwear texture analysis of Homo sapiens sapiens: Foragers, farmers, and pastoralists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 169(2), 207-226, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23815. If you’re interested in other research on prehistoric diets, I strongly urge you to get a hold of one of these popular accounts by Peter S. Ungar: The Real Paleo Diet. Scientific American, 319(1), 42-49. Evolution's Bite A Story of Teeth, Diet, and Human Origins https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10943.html An article I contributed to on dietary reconstructions of Neandertals from Hortus Cave was published online this week in Comptes Rendus Palevol. The research was a collaborative effort between Frank L’Engle Williams, Jessica L. Droke, Christopher W. Schmidt, Gaël Becam, Marie-Antoinette de Lumley, and me. This is another paper that stems from the DENTALWEAR Project directed by Christopher W. Schmidt at the University of Indianapolis that I referenced in an earlier post. Our study is interesting because the Hortus Neandertal sample includes a wide range of age variation: a juvenile, 4 adults, and an older adult (50+ years old - "old" by Pleistocene standards). The Hortus individuals also come from different stratigraphic sequences in the site which are associated with different climatic conditions. Thus, we were able to investigation patterning in diet by both age and in relation to climate. Two-dimensional photosimulations (left, grey images) and their 3D enamel surface reconstructions counterparts for the Hortus Neandertals. for (a) Hortus III, (b) Hortus IV, (c) Hortus V, (d) Hortus VI, (e) Hortus VIII and (f) Hortus XI. The ones for Hortus III and XI are quite similar. We found that the This plot above summarizes are results well. The bivariate plot contains data for two dental microwear texture variables (complexity [Asfc] and anisotropy [epLsar]) that are known to characterize human dietary variation well. The black arrows are generalizations about diet based on comparative data from 12 recent human foraging, farming, and pastoralist groups from the DENTALWEAR Project (Karriger et al., 2016). The variation in diet related to climate is shown by the box labeled "Sub-Phase Vb". The Sub-Phase Vb Neandertals group together which indicates similar dietary strategies during this period of greater coldness and aridity than other phases at the site. The dashed line shows that the adults group separately from the "older" adult and young (juvenile) individual. Thus, age also contributes to unique patterns of dental microwear texture at Hortus. Our results were fairly consistent with our predictions. We now have an even greater understanding of dietary variation and adaptability among the Hortus Neandertals, but also Neandertals in general. References:
Williams FLE, Droke JL, Schmidt CW, Willman JC, Becam G, and de Lumley M-A. 2018 Dental microwear texture analysis of Neandertals from Hortus cave, France / Analyse de la texture des de la micro-usure dentaire chez les Néandertaliens de la grotte de l’Hortus, France. Comptes Rendus Palevol. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2018.04.003 Karriger WM, Schmidt CW, and Smith FH. 2016. Dental microwear texture analysis of Croatian Neandertal molars. PaleoAnthropology 2016:172-184. http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/volumes/2016/ 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
|