By Dr. Nguyen Dinh Chien (Chief Curator of National Museum of Vietnamese History-Ha Noi)
During the last decade of the 20th century, there were several ancient wrecks that were found in Viet Nam. Among those, the following five wrecks surveys and recoveries are especially remarkable.
I. Five ancient shipwrecks excavated in the sea of Vietnam.
1. Vung Tau ancient wrecks (1690)
In June 1990, the wreck Vung Tau, which was approximate to 15 km far from the Hon Cau Island at 40 m depth water beneath the sand of 0.6m to 1.0 m was recovered. Viet Nam Salvage Corporation (Visal) was licensed to collaborate with the Swedish Company Hallstrom Holdings Oceanic using the America driving equipment and divers from America, British, Canada, Viet Nam to recover the wreck. Until July 1991, the recovery was finished. The wrecks of 32.71m long and approximately 9m wide was measured and drawn by the divers. Thousand of artifacts were recovered from the wreck. Most of them were Chinese porcelains dated back to 1690 (1). The key archaeologist who participated during the projects was an Australian, Mr. Michael Flecker.
2. Hon Dam ancient wreck (15th century)
In May 1991, the wreck in Hon Dam – Phu Quoc Island (Kien Giang province) was recovered. This was ancient wreck which Jeremy and Rosemary Harper mention in seminar on porcelain held in Hong Kong in 1978 (2).
Visal recovered the wreck base on its experiences accumulated from the Vung Tau wreck project. The wreck lied at the over 40m depth. Some parts of the wreck were burried under approximate 2m sand. It was measured at about 30m long and 7m wide. The artifacts above the surface of the wreck were curdled in big blocks by oyster. There were about 16.000 pieces of celadon and brown porcelains recovered in the wreck. The most special ones were the port shaped bowls with segmented open rim of 38cm diameter and weighted 03kg. The specialists assumed that those porcelains were made by the Sawankhalok’s Kiln (Thailand) in the 15th century (3). The recovery was participated by the Vietnamese divers and two key archaeologists Michael Flecker (Australian) and Warren Blake (New Zealand).
3. Cu Lao Cham ancient wreck (15th century)
From May 1997 to July 1999, the wreck in the sea of Cu Lao Cham Island (Hoi An – Quang Nam province) was surveyed and archaeologically excavated. The wreck at the 70-72 m deep. The National Museum of Vietnamese History, Visal and Saga Horison (Malaysia) were performed the excavation. The Chairman of the Excavation Committee is Dr. Pham Quoc Quan, Director of the National Museum of Vietnamese History. There were also many archaeologists from Oxford University (England), Kebangsan University (Malaysia), Czechoslovakia and many divers and crew from Viet Nam, Malaysia, England, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand... The excavation showed tracks of a wreck of 29.4 m and 7.2m wide with 19 berth and spaces. Wood of wreck hull was fairly good. Some tenons on some bulkhead beams were still quite firm. Over two hundred thousand artifacts were recovered in the wreck . Most of them were made in Chu Dau – Hai Duong province – Vietnam in the 15th century.
Besides, this excavation was attended by foreign saturation divers and Director of Operation is Mr. Ong Soo Hin – Director of Saga Horizon and the Bound Mensun – The Director of the Archaeology who is the Director of the Marine Research Department of London University Oxford – England.
4. Ca Mau ancient wreck (1723 – 1725)
From August 1998 to October 1999, the National Museum of Vietnamese History, Visal and Museum of Ca Mau performed the archaeological excavation of the wreck in Ca Mau . The Chairman of the Excavation Committee is Dr. Nguyen Dinh Chien- Chief Curator of the National Museum of Vietnamese history.The excavation was headed by the archaeologists of the National Museum of Vietnamese history through diving operation of Visal’s divers who have an international certificates 3.I.U. The wreck was in the sea depth of 36 m with some obscure tracks of 24m long and about 8m wide. More 60 thousands of artifacts were recovered. Most of them were blue and white glaze porcelains and multicolor painted glazed ones and were made in China. Inscriptions in blue on the base of some bowls and cups indicates that they were made during the Yongzheng reign (1723–1725). The project had been especially done by only Vietnamese divers under supervision of the Vietnamese archaeologists. In 2002, the excavation result was reported in the book with title “ The Ca Mau Shipwreck- 1723- 1735” .(4)
5. Binh Thuan ancient wreck ( 16th – 17th century)
From 2001 to 2002, the wreck in the sea of Binh Thuan province was surveyed and archaeologically excavated. The National Museum of Vietnamese history and Visal performed the excavation. The chairman of the Excavation Committee is Dr.Nguyen Dinh Chien, Chief Curator of National Museum of Vietnamese History. The excavation showed tracks of a wreck of 23.4 m long and 7.2 m wide with 25 berths and spaces. Over 60 thousands of artifacts were recovered. Most of them were blue and white glaze porcelains and multi-colour painted glazed ones and were made in China. Origin of goods carried on board the ship from Jingdezhen, Jiangxi province; Dehua kiln complex, Fujian province and Guangzhou kiln complex, Guangdong province.
The ship and cargo are dated to the late 16th to early 17th century, the same of Wanli reign of late Ming dynasty. The excavation results were noticed in the scientific report by Dr. Nguyen Dinh Chien and Dr. Michael Flecker.(5)
II. Some experience in excavating and handling the artifacts of ancient shipwrecks.
1. Pre-excavation:
Most of the wrecks were accidentally found by fishermen while fishing. Therefore, it is needed to have further proper surveys to clarify the nature of the wrecks. Then to complete the relevant procedures as well as to arrange the excavating equipment.
• Arranging the personnel for the project as archaeologist, divers, conservators logisticts, guards of the site…
• Close circus television including diving masks KMB, underwater communications, diving control and video.
• Grids and sticks to set on the surface of the wreck.
• Space and instruments to wash the artifacts from sand and mud; package to transfer artifacts to the storages on shore.
• Form for analysis, statisticts of the recovered artifacts.
• Spaces and instruments for conservation, desalination, restoration and making scientific archives of recovered artifacts, which must be well treated numbered before taking the final classification. All artifacts data will be computerized under management and administration softwares.
2. Process of the underwater archaeological excavation:
• After the arrival of the means, which carrying personnel and equipment for the excavation at the site, the means will anchor over the wreck position. Based on the diving report the archaeologists will set up a core line as an azimuth for coordinates by connecting some visible parts of the wrecks such as beams, masts…Then the perpendicular aluminum grids with each side of 02 m long will be fixed above the wreck and having sides parallel to the core line and marked by rags.
• The excavation operation will be routinely arranged between the archaeologists and divers. Through the close circus camera with masks KMB 17 and the underwater communications, the diver masters will help archaeologists in the Excavation Committee to supervise and check up on the drives for the effect of air lists or the recovery of artifacts.
• At the depth of 35-40 m, we apply the air surface supply diving method. At the sea level below 4-5, every day we can operate 6-7 diving shifts, each two divers. The total diving time of one shift is 45 minutes (including time for decompression). Every diving shift will be followed up by log books with the video to their activities.
• The archaeologists will supervise the excavation through the monitors, to note what happening underwater and on board, especially concentrating on the drafting draws of divers, discussing and deciding which grid will excavated next.
• After the artifacts being pick up and put to baskets and lifted up, the archaeologists will initially classify and pack artifacts in the rubber baskets, which numbered and covered by nylon nets. Those baskets then will be put in to the sea water tanks waiting for transferring to the storages on shore or to the archaeologists barges. The delivery of these baskets must enclose the artifacts forms for the following up and statistics of artifacts in each grid, with name of divers, diving shift, date, people making notes and description.
• The sea usually has big swell at the sea level of 4-5 at the depth of 72 m in April 1999; we applied the saturation diving method. Following to this way, there were 2 shifts, 11 hours a shift (working time of 22 hours a day). The divers get up the grids, using air lifts, recovering the artifacts, putting into numbered rubber baskets and to the big steel baskets which could contain thousands of artifacts. Then the crane lifted up the steel basket to the barge. The archaeologists and workers washed the artifacts and numbered them and then put them in to the plastic tanks which were numbered too. The artifacts of each type were chosen and numbered, taken photograph, technically drown. With the recovery, the recording and drawing of the site were also undertaken usually.
3. Onshore post excavation
Big tanks or rubber tanks with fresh water were used to contain the artifacts for a number of days. Then the water was checked by the solution AgNO3, HNO3 and the desalinated equipment. When the saltiness was finished, artifacts were dried. Then the conservators recorded the result using the form NO6/TCCM.
• Chipped artifacts after begging put in the separate nylon bags, they were washed, cleaned and then restored by clue UHU or PVA. The separated parts of artifacts needed to be restored (boxes of two parts, kettle with lid and spout, handle...)
• The artifacts in the baskets after had been treated and completed the desallation were classified, numbered and noted in the following forms:
B4/TCCM: Condition form.
B5/TCCM: Dimension and photograph form.
B6/TCCM: Conservation form.
B7/TCCM: Artifacts (see annex) data sheet.
• Took photographs and technical drawing of the shapes and design of artifacts...
• The computerization of the data from the above forms with photographs and technical drawing help the archaeologists to recognize the disposition and the density of artifacts and the situation of the site. Based on the above mentioned matters, the archaeologists will answer the questions related to the wrecks such as dating back of the wreck, ship-owner art value…
• From the study result of the wreck, the archaeologists will make a scientific report with full of drawings of the site, typical kinds, ornamental objects, designs of decorations, video tapes of the survey and excavation. It will then be promulgated as a studying book and exhibited.
*
Viet Nam is a country of over 3,000 km shoreline, lying on the international trading marine road. Form the early day, Vietnam created an economy and culture liaison with the other countries in the world. Underwater archaeological excavations in Vietnam through above five projects could be considered as the potential initial steps. Even though this work is new with our archaeological activities, but we have a lot of chances to share our underwater archaeological excavation experience with other countries. The recent excavations have proved the successful co-operation between us with organizations and specialists in the world for Vietnamese underwater archaeology.
The five ancient wrecks in Vietnam were archeologically excavated, specially the wrecks at Cu Lao Cham, Ca Mau and Binh Thuan. This will contribute more information to study process of the international marine road as well as the trading liaison at Vietnamese sea during the past centuries.
Note:
(1). Christie’s Vung Tau Cargo, Amsterdam 1992. Nguyen Quoc Hung: Excavation of the Antique Treasure at the Sea Bottom Hon Cau (Vung Tau) – Archaeology Magazine Issue N03 – 1992 (page 62- 73).
(2). M. Roxanna Brown. The ceramic of South East Asia. Their Dating and Identification – Kualalumpur, Oxford University Express, 1997.
(3). Pham Quoc Quan and Nguyen Quoc Hung: Thai Ceramics at the Wreck in Phu Quoc- Kien Giang. Culture and Art Study Magazine Issue N01 (108) – 1993 (page 66- 67)
(4). Nguyen Dinh Chien: The Camau Shipwreck 1723 – 1735. Hanoi, 2002.
(5). Nguyen Dinh Chien and Michael Flecker: The Scientific Report on Binh Thuan Shipwrecks. Ha Noi, 2003.
Read More..
Underwater Archaeology: Excavations in Viet Nam
George Washington’s Blacksmith Shop
During 1930s, Morley Williams, a landscape architect from Harvard University, was conducting historical and archaeological research at the plantation and he supervised the initial excavations at George Washington’s Blacksmith Shop. The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association was interested in the smithy as a possible candidate for reconstruction in the early of this decade. Williams and the Association were interested in identifying structures and other features present during 1799, the year of George Washington’s death, to enhance the authenticity of the historic house museum. Besides numerous documentary references to the shop, the structure was depicted on the Vaughan plan drawn in 1787. At some point a brick Ice House was constructed at the site of the Blacksmith Shop and debate over the age of this structure, the date of the demise of the smithy, and the Blacksmith's Shop size and appearance were the goals of this and subsequent excavations conducted over the next half-century.
Morley Williams excavated at the Blacksmith's Shop during the 1930s.
The Association sought physical evidence for the exact location and appearance of the Blacksmith's Shop, as well as about the activities undertaken at the Blacksmith's Shop to support a reconstruction of the building and interpret blacksmithing at the museum, an important component of the plantation economy. Besides Morley Williams’s work in the 1930s, restoration architect Walter Macomber excavated at the site during the 1950s and 1960s as did the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology during their survey and archaeological assessment of the plantation in 1984 -- 85. Dennis J. Pogue, Mount Vernon’s first Chief Archaeologist, completed this final excavation in 1989.
The base of the brick blacksmith's forge.
The archaeological excavations revealed considerable structural evidence for the shop. This included a fragmentary brick foundation that is interpreted to be the base of the forge, and two sections of masonry, running east-west and 16 feet apart, that are remnants of the foundation for the long walls of the shop. The forge base has a characteristic void in the center, marking the location of the fire box. A portion of the forge base and most of the shop’s foundations were disturbed by later construction, including erecting a mid-19th century ice house overlapping with the shop’s footprint.
Postholes such as these show the location for fences near the Shop.
The archaeological evidence indicates that the shop was 16 feet in width, but the other dimension cannot be determined. On the Vaughan plan the building measures roughly 12 by 40 feet, but this is clearly an example of artistic license. The depiction of the shop shown on the earlier Vaughan sketch appears more likely to be closer to the actual dimensions, as it is shown as roughly 18 by 24 feet.
The Vaughan plan depicts the Blacksmith Shop (top left) as 12 x 40 feet. Click image to see the 18 x 24-foot Shop on Vaughan's earlier sketch (#13).
Two rows of post holes and molds mark the location of two fencelines, each of which intersected with a corner on the east end of the shop. The fenceline connecting with the southeast corner turned to form a work yard on that side of the building, turning again to run parallel to the north lane and ultimately connecting with a corner of the Servants Hall, 160 feet distant, just as indicated on the 1787 Vaughan plan. The distance between the square post molds was six feet, and the view of the site shown in a painting executed by Edward Savage circa 1792 indicates that the fence was well finished and painted white. The other fenceline ran from the northeast corner of the shop to the north along the edge of the lane. The round postmolds marking this fence were nine feet apart, suggesting that it was a more rustic, post-and-rail fence. This fence appears to have been replaced by the time that Savage made his painting, as his depiction shows a white fence connecting with the northwest corner of the building, matching the one on the other side of the shop.
This painting from c. 1792 provides important evidence for the Blacksmiths'' Shop and the two fences.
The resulting picture of the Blacksmith's Shop is of a modest structure, supported by a brick foundation, upon which a wooden frame, clapboard siding, and shingled roof were erected. The Savage painting and plantation records indicate that the shop was unpainted, suggesting that it was considered to be a more utilitarian structure than the other outbuildings along the lane, with their white-painted walls and red-painted shingles. The adjoining fenced yard would have served as a handy general work area, being especially useful when repairing large items such as wagons and carriages, and bulky agricultural equipment. Great quantities of coal, slag, and other refuse were found within the yard area, testifying to the common practice of the day of disposing of rubbish, even very messy materials such as smith’s waste, very near their source.
An artist's rendering of what the Blacksmith's Shop may have looked like.
The bottom courses of a robbed brick wall footing were found abutting what is interpreted as the northeast corner of the Shop. This is likely the terminus of the brick Ha-Ha wall that encircled the east lawn of the Mansion, and which is known to have been in existence by 1785. This portion of the Ha-Ha wall was removed and relocated in the 1890s during its reconstruction. At that time the route of the wall was altered to terminate at the corner of the brick Ice House. When the Blacksmith's Shop was demolished, the Ha-Ha would have ended in space, necessitating its extension to the west, where it probably connected with a fence or wall running along the north lane. The Currier plan of 1855 shows the north Ha-Ha connecting with a short section of wall or fence just north of the ice house.
The foundation of the earlier Ha-Ha wall.
Based on the archaeological evidence Mount Vernon reconstructed the Blacksmith Shop in 2009. Today, this important plantation craft is once again practiced at the site. The numerous artifacts and historical information discovered during the investigations help interpret the space for our visitors.
Read More..
Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts in Mississippi: The Study (Part III)
Flaked Lithic Artifacts found in Mississippi
Core and Flake: A core is the piece of material from which flakes are removed.
In the illustration it shows a flake removed from the core and flake scar left behind. All of the tool types shown below also have flake scars, but these are related to the shaping of the implement. A core serves the purpose of producing flakes that can be used as tools without further modification or flakes that can be further shaped into formal tools like those defined below.
Point: These are tools inferred to have tipped projectiles like spears, darts, and arrows. Many points served a variety of functions other than use a projectile including use as knives, scrapers, and perforators. As shown in the illustration, the size and shape of points is quite variable. This is partly related to function and style. The smaller two pints were used to tip arrows, while the other three were likely used thrusting spears or darts used with spear throwers.
Adze: These tool vary in shape and size, but generally have a steep bit and are often oval in shape. Adzes were used in woodworking activities, much like modern adzes.
Drill/Perforator: This tool type possesses a long tapered bit that is usually rounded or diamond-shaped in cross-section. They were often used in a rotary motion to drill holes into resistant material like wood, bone, antler, or stone rounding the tool margins. In addition, they were sometimes used as perforators. This would have involved piercing materials such as hide in task like the production of clothing.
Hoe: These tools are associated with the cultivation of domestic plants like corn. Hoes do not occur until prehistoric populations began to rely heavily on maize and other domesticated crops. These tools are almost always made of sturdy chert that outcrops in southern Illinois called Mill Creek chert. A heavy polish or sheen forms on the working edge of these tools. Archaeologist can identify flakes made from resharpening hoes because traces of this polish are still present on the back (dorsal) surface.
Gravers: These are sharp, beak-like protrusions made on flakes or other tools. Gravers were used to cut or engrave materials like bone or wood.
Scraper: These tools are characterized by a steep area of unifacial (flaked on one side) flaking. Scrapers are commonly associated with scraping materials like hide, bone, or wood. However, in some cases these tools were also used in cutting.
Ground and Battered Lithic Artifacts found in Mississippi
Axe: These are ground and polished tools used to chop trees and in other woodworking tasks. They can be grooved like the illustration or ungrooved.
Celt: Ungrooved or slightly grooved axe-like stone tool that has been shaped by grinding and polishing. The bit is bifacially beveled. They are often made from non-local coarse-grained raw material.
Gorgets: These items are ground and polished, and were probably worn around the neck or on the chest. Other possible uses include atlatl (spear thrower) weight or arrow wrist guards.
Plummet: Ground and polished implement potentially used as net weights, ornaments, or weight for bolas. These tools are primarily made of metallic rocks like hematite.
Discoidal: These are ground and polished round stones, sometimes with a drilled center, that were probably used in a game of skill called chunkey.
Pitted Anvil: These implements have one or more pecked out circular pits. These pits are usually formed by cracking hard-shelled nuts and or other rocks to produce flakes for use (bipolar flaking). Pitted anvils are usually made on coarse materials like sandstones.
Grinding Stones: This tool type is primarily formed through the grinding of plant materials creating one or more grinding facets. Coarse materials like sandstones are most commonly used for these implements.
Hammerstone: These tools were used to strike flakes off more brittle pieces of rock. Hammerstones are heavily crushed along used edges, and are commonly made of a sturdy material like quartzite.
Read More..
An Archaeological Excavation In Aksum, Ethiopia
The ancient city of Aksum wielded great influence over trade in agricultural produce, ivory and gold. Via the port of Adulis the Aksumites held trading prominence on both shores of the Red Sea and rose economically on the interchange with the Roman Empire. This city is located 2,200 metres above sea level on a flat plateau deep in the interior of Ethiopia on Africa's horn.
The Kings of Aksum once ruled the great African power of Ethiopia. Little is known of the ancient Aksumites and an archaeology excavation of the old city is an important source of relevant data.
Archaeology Excavations At Aksum
Although the first recognised archaeology excavations were begun in 1906 it was not until Dr Neville Chittick's expedition in 1974 that the deep tombs beneath the city were explored. Like most treasure-hunting expeditions the earlier work concentrated on the easy pickings of artefacts from monuments and elite cemetery sites. By the 1970's, Chittick, working with staff under the British Institute in Eastern Africa, was using scientific explorative archaeology techniques at Aksum.
However, the improved methodology did not mean that Dr Chittick would not follow his early colleagues in selecting archaeology excavation sites that favoured the upper classes of an urban city. Grand palaces, stately homes, substantial and significant tombs, and even church buildings have surrendered their artefacts once belonging to Aksum's elite groups. Excavations have proved to unearth almost no peasant dwellings or their accompanying artefacts.
The reason for this could be that the class gap between the elite and the poor was so great that the peasants owned or used very little objects or tools in their daily lives. A second suggestion is that the peasantry were not permitted to live in urban centres and their peripheral dwellings are yet to be uncovered.
In spite of the lack of distilled information about this archaeology site many objects have been recovered in excavations. Pottery, glass, stoneware and metalwork artefacts all reveal a great deal about Ethiopia's lost gentry class.
Pottery Artefacts At Aksum
Fine and coarse ceramic items have been located in very large quantities in archaeology excavations at Aksum. What interests archaeologists about Aksumite pottery is that it appears to have been made in a unique fashion without the influence of the chronology of foreign pottery traditions.
The predominance of the characteristic style of a lightly impressed decorative design with vertical corrugations combined with small impressions in a staggered fashion within diamond-shaped panels has led to the pottery being known as 'classical Aksumite'.
Many of the pots and bowls extant as artefacts have stamped impressions often in the form of a cross in many different styles. The Ethiopian Queen, Candice, permitted her royal treasurer to attend the Passover celebration in Jerusalem and he was present in the city during the crucifixion week. Ethiopia's Lord of the Exchequer is credited with bringing Christianity back to Ethiopia.
Red, black and white were popular pottery colours although the rare and more collectable is known as purple-painted ware. This brownish-purple paint was used in the later Aksumite period.
Most pottery objects appear to have been made for drinking, eating, storing and cooking but some unusual items were certainly used for special purposes such as holding cosmetics, personal care and ceremonial occasions.
Glassware Excavated At Aksum
The Aksum excavations have uncovered a variety of exotically coloured glassware that is not represented at any other site. Among the rich range of glassware artefacts located, the common vessels are clearly imported. It is unlikely that lower classes could have afforded glass items as the journey from Egypt or Syria by ship followed a long, troublesome uphill land trek to the interior would have made the item highly expensive at its destination.
Thin-stemmed goblets, long necked flasks and engraved bowls tend to indicate rather luxurious levels of living. In one of the great homes, oil burning glass lamps suspended by fine bronze chains provides further evidence of the comfortable Aksumite lifestyle.
Aksumites were not without fine glass jewellery. Glass was employed into bangles and necklaces incorporating leaves of thin gold.
Stoneware Artefacts At Aksum
In Aksum's Addi Kilte district a quantity of broken lithic pieces was discovered in archaeology excavations of rooms that appear to be one of the great mansion houses. Archaeologists who excavated the floor believe they were deliberately broken and incorporated into the foundation for the plaster floor. Although none of the items were found complete, reconstruction of the artefacts shows them to be finely made, lathe-turned, stone bowls of an exquisite purplish colour. Like the locally made pottery and glassware, nothing like these bowls is known from any other source in Ethiopia.
Metal Artefact Items At Aksum
The metal artefacts found at Aksum fall into two main categories:
1. Luxury Items
Items made from the precious metals of gold and silver include jewellery, delicate boxes, small ornamental objects, and even bowls. Figurines in gold, silver and bronze were also located.
Comparative to other major North African sites there has been little in the way of gold or silver artefacts discovered. What has been excavated is, not surprisingly, of an Eastern Mediterranean appearance, in view of the considerable trading links with that region.
2. Utilitarian Items
Items made from iron include tools and weapons. All of the basic equipment for labourers and soldiers has been identified such as knives, chisels, saws, and axes for the workers while spearheads and arrowheads are examples of their military resourcefulness.
The Rise and Fall of Aksum
Aksum boasts some monumental architecture unconvered by archaeology excavation. One hundred stone obelisks loom over the cemetery; the tallest at over 30 metres high weighs 517 tons. Aksum's high rate of literacy saw it flourish until, in the 6th century AD, the rise of the Persian Empire redrew the map of Asia excluding the kingdom of Aksum from its trading networks. Shortly thereafter, the great Ethiopian trading capital fell from world importance.
Read More..
Archaeology at Freshwater Sites (Part III)
General Guidelines for Conserving Objects Excavated from Freshwater Sites
• Do not hesitate to ask for professional advice. Contact the John and Martha Daniels Laboratory (JMD) at the Minnesota Historical Society or a professional conservator in your area; telephone, (612) 297-5774. The American Institute of Conservation (AIC) in Washington, D.C. has a computerized referral service that lists AIC members who consider themselves qualified in specialized fields; call (202) 452-9545.
• Have a plan. Anticipate what types of objects and materials will be brought up. Plan to have the funds, equipment and supplies necessary to properly store and stabilize the objects.
• Know where the objects will end up for long term storage and/or exhibit. Contact the repository, if known, for their guidelines for storage. Make adequate provisions for proper storage supports and materials.
• Good archaeology is proactive. Contact a conservator before proper object care becomes a major problem.
• Provide adequate security for the objects, especially if they are in outdoor holding tanks.
• Take water samples and object materials to a conservator for testing, if at all possible. This will help establish the condition parameters and help to design proper treatments. It is usually easier to send samples than the objects to an out-of-town conservator.
• Keep wet materials wet. Try to maintain the objects’ environmental equilibria.
• Monitor the water quality in the holding tanks regularly for mold growth.
Note: Electrolysis is usually not necessary for metal stabilization. “Traditional” methods for treating marine objects are not always directly applicable to objects from other environments.
Trade axe head found in 1960 at Horsetail Falls with the nested kettles. The steel blade edge has annealed to a wrought iron body. Wrought iron and steel is stable in fresh water
Some Definitions
CONSERVATION is the profession that is devoted to the preservation of cultural property for the future. It includes examination, documentation, treatment, and preventive care, supported by research and education.
TREATMENT is defined as the deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, aimed primarily at prolonging its existence and preserving as much inherent information as possible.
STABILIZATION denotes treatment procedures that are intended to maintain the integrity of cultural property and to minimize deterioriation.
RESTORATION denotes treatment procedures that are intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of non-original material(s).
A CONSERVATOR is a professional whose primary occupation is the practice of conservation and who, through specialized education, knowledge, training, and experience, formulates and implements all the activities of conservation in accordance with an ethical code such as, but not limited to, the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice.
Read More..
Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts in Mississippi: The Study (Part II)
How do archaeologists identify what activities produced lithic artifacts or the tasks in which they were used? This is a difficult and at times complicated task, but models explaining how stone artifacts were produced and used have been and are continuing to be developed primarily through written records describing modern hunter-gatherers who still use/used stone tools and scientific experimentation. The modern-day production of stone artifacts has helped archaeologists understand what kind of debris or waste is left behind. In addition, modern replicas can be used to do certain task like butchering a deer, so that the use-wear produced on the experimental tool can be compared with artifacts. These kinds of studies allow archaeologist to identify how certain prehistoric stone tools were used. In addition, the design of stone tools can provide clues about the people who made and used them. A good modern example can be made between a plastic set of disposable utensils, a fine set of silverware utensils, and a Swiss Army knife containing a fork, knife, spoon, etc. These sets of utensils can all be used to eat, but the situations in which they are used are different. Like people today, prehistoric groups made tools that fit their lifestyle, so groups practicing very different lifeways should possess tools of differing design.
The final question that was listed above is what clues do lithic artifacts provide concerning the lifeways of the people who produced and used them? In fact, many of the clues archaeologists use to answer this question have already been presented. We already know that a prehistoric group’s territory can be partially understood through looking at where the lithic materials originated, activities that stone tools were associated with can be identified through comparison with modern-day replicas, which allow inferences concerning site function to be made, and the shape of the tool can help in determining how old it is.
Archaeologists around the world use artifacts, including lithics, to reconstruct a variety of cultural jigsaw puzzles that represent views of the past that are not recorded in any history book. In Mississippi and other regions, trying to piece together the past is a difficult task because so many sites have been destroyed by modern development and farming. Another factor in the destruction of archaeological sites is the undocumented collecting of artifacts, like “arrowheads”. If certain data are not recorded, such as artifact provenience, much of the information embedded in these artifacts is destroyed. So, if you are interested in archaeology and lithic technology, get in touch with an archaeologist in your area for guidance to insure that you are not damaging the prehistory of Mississippi.
A glossary of lithic artifacts found in Mississippi is provided, including illustrations. The glossary is very general including only a sample of the lithic artifact types recovered from the state. For those of you interested in lithic technology, here are a few references on the subject.
The Glosary... will be on the next post...
Read More..
Artifacts, Archaeology and Cabeza De Vaca (Part II)
Cabeza de Vaca in the Interior
Cabeza de Vaca's activities on the margin of the coastal prairies, and then his journey through the interior to the Rio Grande raise several archaeological issues. For example, references to subsistence activities are of interest. While with the Mariames on the lower Guadalupe River (we assume), Cabeza de Vaca and his colleagues where involved in the processing of pecans. This may have involved ground stone manos and metates, or even the use of stone pestles. Alternatively, they may have used wooden mortars and pestles of the sort reported ethnohistorically in Nuevo Leon in the 17th century by Alonso de Leon (Brown 1988; see also Beals 1932), and archaeologically, from the lower Pecos area by Collins and Hester (1968) and Prewitt (1981). In addition, the harvesting and processing of tuna, the fruit of prickly pears might have involved similar gear, or just an earthen pit.
It is of great interest to me that when, in 1532, Cabeza de Vaca and colleagues are involved in the summer harvesting of prickly pear tuna, there is no mention of pottery, which would have been ideal for the storage of beverages made from tuna juices (cf Krieger 1956:53); indeed, he mentions a "lack of vessels" for the juice from the tunas. Either this is specific only to the group with whom Cabeza de Vaca's was associated, or his route across southern Texas was a bit farther south than the "southern route" currently suggests. I can say this with confidence in that the peoples of the southern Texas interior had begun making bonetempered pottery, including olla forms as early as A.D. 1200 1300 (cf. Hester 1980:126; Highley 1986) and continued making this ware through the Late Prehistoric and during the time they were residing in the 18th century Spanish missions. Pottery was being made as far south as Alice, and clearly north of a line running from Dimmit County down to Alice and eastward to Baffin Bay. Thus, the map of his journey might be more accurately drawn as running south of Alice (per Campbell and Campbell 1981 : Figure l) - or his route took a decided southern turn per Wells and Davenport (cf. Chipman 1987:131). I doubt the latter is the case as the Wells and Davenport route would have put the castaways in the South Texas Sand Sheet area, a patch of south Texas that Cabeza de Vaca would have surely remembered ! Indeed, if Cabeza de Vaca was among the Avavares, whose territory included the legendary great prickly pear fields, he would then have been in Webb, Duval and southern Jim Wells County, south of the pottery-making peoples.
While among the Avavares, Cabeza de Vaca was told of the myth of Mala Cosa, the Badthing. Among his deeds was the use of a "flint knife two palms long and a hand wide" (Covey 1961:90) to inflict wounds on hapless individuals. There is no raw material in southern Texas that would have allowed the Avavares to even envision a stone tool of that size (the Uvalde and Rio Grande gravels used for points and everyday tools are relatively small cobbles). A description of such a massive biface may reflect what we see archaeologically in the region, and that is the presence of large, thin bifaces ("knives") that have been traded into the region from the Edwards Plateau (e.g. Taylor and Highley 1995, Hester and Barber 1990). [Such specimens are in both the Witte and TARL collections.] Cabeza de Vaca's projected entry into Mexico near what is today the Falcon Reservoir district is probably accurate. We are just now learning about the Late Prehistoric peoples in that region, and are literally awaiting receipt of radiocarbon dates on several burials (with associated grave goods) that might shed new light on the people of that region in the 16th century (cf. Hester 1995). It should also be noted that this area, especially Starr, Zapata and Jim Hogg Counties, has a high density of prickly pear, but little in the way of creeks or other surface water (Hester 1981). This area and the area to the east could have been the territories of the Avavares (at least seasonally), and certainly the Arbadaos (Campbell and Campbell 1981), and the dire descriptions of their subsistence, during Cabeza de Vaca's eight months in the monte , would certainly fit with the settlement pattern and low-density resource modeled that I have put forth for the region [Hester 1981; why Covey (1961 :92) equates this locale with the Texas "hill country" is indeed a mystery]. Cabeza de Vaca's stay among the Cuchendados (Campbell and Campbell 1981:393 on the Rio Grande demonstrates his adaptation to life in the region (Wade 1996) and his skills at making items of material culture, such as mats, which were greatly prized as house coverings in what appear to have been at least a couple of sizable villages. Cabeza de Vaca offers other insights into subsistence that have archaeological implications. He notes bison in the area of the Mariame (which Covey for some inexplicable reason places in the area of Austin), and clearly there were bison at this period on the coastal prairies (cf. Hester and Parker 1970, Ricklis 1996). He also points to the fact that the Mariame and related groups ate practically everything. This is borne out by the long lists of faunal remains at Late Prehistoric sites in the region (e.g., Black 1986, Highley 1986; Hester and Hill 1975). It is intriguing that he notes the pulverization of bone, to reduce these materials to bone grease to be mixed with other foods. This is a well known practice among southern California Indians (Bean 1972:66). However, faunal remains are so extensive and so well preserved at most Late Prehistoric sites in south Texas that this technology must have been used either with certain species or at certain times of the year (or, in cases of famine/ hunger). Krieger (1956:53) reports that snails (land, or prairie snails; Rabdotus sp.) were also eaten, though I cannot locate this reference in the published translations. Campbell (1983) also reports the eating of snails by the Mariame while they were in the tuna fields. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming in terms of snail consumption. Along the central and southern coast, on the coastal prairies, and into the interior, Late Prehistoric sites have abundant land snails in the middens. Some archaeologists attribute their presence to the scavenging activities of land snails, but this is a facile argument that ignores the archaeological data (e.g., their association with hearths and food processing areas; cf Scott 1982; Black 1986, Highley 1986); if the snails got incorporated into the middens as casual scavengers, then they have clearly changed their feeding habits in South Texas since late prehistory (Hester 1995)! Snail shells are so common at sites in Starr and Zapata Counties, the territory of the Arbadaos (and Cuchendados?) that archaeological sites can be easily recognized during survey‹while riding in a truck‹by the glistening white sheen of the mass of snails eroding out of the sites (Nunley and Hester 1975).
Cabeza de Vaca refers to digging of roots, this would have been done with digging sticks, of the kind that survive today only in dry caves (e.g., examples from the Lower Pecos caves in the Witte Museum collections). He also describes the use of earth ovens for cooking roots. Archaeologists working in the region have not conclusively identified such pits, though there are a variety of hearths, including charcoal and rock filled features that might have served in this fashion (as at Choke Canyon, Scott 1982, Hester et al. 1975 report deep rock filled pits from McMullen County that were clearly earth ovens). While Cabeza de Vaca disparages the Indians' use of fire to burn off the prairies, this was a widespread practice in Texas and the Great Plains. Archaeological evidence of such activities is, of course, hard to come by, though McGraw (1983:91) recorded thin lines of charcoal in excavation profiles near Laredo that might reflect such activities. I have always been bothered by Cabeza de Vaca's descriptions of hunger, famine and low quantities of food just about everywhere he went (these descriptions have been embellished; cf. Krieger 1956). This simply does not fit with the archaeological evidence, in terms of faunal remains (animals, fish, marine or freshwater shell, snails, etc.) that occur in sites in the area where he must have traveled. Perhaps his eight months in the monte in the south Texas interior reflected seasonal variations in food availability as recorded by Alonso del Leon (Brown 1988). Or perhaps he was there in a time of drought; having just been in the area currently suffering from a significant drought, I can imagine the shortage of resources he encountered. Or perhaps his descriptions reflect his bias as a European who had to subsist on unfamilar and distasteful foods. The settlement pattern described for the Mariame and associated groups, to be near wood and water, fits what is seen for the placement of prehistoric occupation sites in the region [Cabeza de Vaca later contradicts himself by noting that the Indians "have no familiar places for getting water" (Covey 1961: 83). Perhaps here he referred to groups deeper into south Texas, where creeks and water sources were indeed fewer (the low-density zones described by Hester 1981). The brevity with which the sites were occupied likely suggests repeated occupations over the years, again fitting with the "settlement zones" seen in the areas of higher density resources in the region (Hester 1981). Some sites were apparently occupied long enough for houses, albeit flimsy ones, to be set up. Archaeological evidence for such houses is limited to a few postmolds or trash distribution patterns from a few sites (cf. Black 1986: 266).
The Summary will have to wait for another post...
Read More..
Archaeology at Freshwater Sites (Part II)
Chemical Considerations
Although freshwater does contain dissolved minerals, we do not have to contend with the large amount of chloride ions that are in sea water. Chlorine is particularly troublesome with metals such as iron and copper because of its strong negative charge, which gives it a strong attraction to positively charged metals. When combined with an electrolyte solution such as sea water, this strong attraction sets up galvanic electrical currents that lead to corrosion and metal loss.
In freshwater, metals combine with oxygen and other dissolved anions (electrically charged particles) such as sulphates and phosphates. The biological activity in freshwater is different from that in seawater and there is no precipitation of the calcium carbonate that leads to the massive concretions that occur on marine objects. One corrosion problem that does occur with metals in freshwater is increased galvanic corrosion, which happens when two dissimilar metals are indirect contact. (See the picture of the copper kettle.) When copper and iron are in direct contact, the iron corrodes preferentially, becoming what is termed a sacrificial anode. This kettle is from an inland submerged riverine site, at Horsetail Falls of the Granite River, in the Gunflint Trail region of Minnesota.
The iron handle of this copper kettle has completely corroded, but has left the iron minerals from the corrosion products behind on the copper surfaces.
Water-logged organic materials such as wood, leather, and other fibrous materials can be very fragile, while appearing to be in good condition. Do not be fooled by appearances! If allowed to dry out completely without special treatment, these objects will be destroyed with little hope for restoration. Valuable historical and archaeological information will be lost forever.
The conservation of water-logged organic materials requires extensive knowledge of chemistry and currently available practices, and often requires specialized equipment and supplies. Treatment is often slow, and can be expensive. It is for these reasons, and others, that it is best to leave these objects where they are. If that is not possible, then contact a qualified conservator to help with detailed recovery and conservation plans and specifications.
“Put it back”
An option that is somewhat akin to the conservation philosophy is the current “put it back” movement among well-meaning avocational and professional underwater archaeologists. Although it sounds simple and effective enough at first look, this is not necessarily the correct option in all cases.
Particularly with organic objects, re-submerging them after they have dried or been treated can spell disaster. Water-logging them again will cause stresses in and between fibers and structures that have already been weakened first by the previous water-logging,
then by the equilibration to the air. Treatments may have introduced chemicals into the materials that make them water-resistant and have changed their density. Metal objects will be less affected by putting them back into water, but there are still risks and questions to be answered. These include: Is the object structurally stable? Will the increased pressure affect it adversely? Is the environment to which it will be returning the same over all as when the object came out, or have certain parameters changed?
It would help answer the questions we have about putting objects back on sites if we had a body of data on objects that have been put back so far. Written and photographic documentation of the bjects, with as much recovery and treatment history as is possible, will help conservators assess and analyze the effects of resubmergence on objects.
This article may have raised more questions than it has answered. Wet and water-logged objects pose complicated problems, but the stories that they can tell us are invaluable historical resources. Cooperation among all interested and involved parties can go a long way in solving some of these problems.
General Guidelines will have to wait for another post...
Read More..
Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts in Mississippi: The Study (Part I)
Kevin L. Bruce
A lithic artifact represents any stone object modified by humans. Archaeologists studying prehistoric and historic Native Americans commonly identify several general types of lithic artifacts including formal tools, ornaments, cores, flake debris, and fire cracked rock (see glossary). In Mississippi there are three basic lithic technologies (flaked, ground, and battered technologies). Flaked stone technology involves the fracturing of fine-grained rock like chert or quartzite, so that fragments or flakes can be produced. These flakes are sharp and can be used in a number of tasks like cutting meat or scraping hide. In addition to producing flakes that can be immediately used and discarded (expedient tools), prehistoric people would also shape cobbles or large flakes to produce tools that are typically used longer and more intensively (formal tools). An example of a formal tool is what most people refer to as an “arrowhead”. Archaeologists refer to these tools as points, because they were used to tip an arrow, spear, or dart, but the term arrowhead is not used since not all points were used with a bow and arrow. Some other kinds of flaked tools found in Mississippi include scrapers, gravers, drills, knives, hoes, and adzes. These tools were used in a wide variety of tasks like hunting, preparing hides, butchering prey, making ornaments, farming, and woodworking just to name a few. Ground stone is commonly made from coarse-grained rock like sandstone and formed by grinding associated with the preparation of plant foods like corn. Other types of groundstone are not formed by use associated with food processing, but by intentional grinding. Some examples include ground axes, celts, stone beads, gorgets, discoidals, and plummets. Most of these tools and ornaments were made on rock that does not flake well, so the prehistoric stoneworkers would use abrasive materials like sand or other coarse stone to shape these materials through grinding. Battered stone was made on durable, coarse stone and used as hammerstones to flake fine-grained rocks like chert. Another use of battered stone was to crack hard-shelled nuts like hickory nuts. These tools often have depressions formed on their surface and are called pitted anvils or nutting stones.
On most archaeological sites in Mississippi, lithic artifacts form the bulk of cultural materials recovered. This is largely due to the fact that organic materials like wood and bone are not commonly preserved on archaeological sites. In the region, the only other artifact class resistant to decomposition is pottery, however; pottery was not adopted until around 2,500 years ago in the region. Since current archaeological evidence indicates that people have been present in the area for at least 12,000 years, a large portion of the prehistoric record consists entirely of lithic artifacts. As a result much of what archaeologist discover about the distant past is based on the study of lithic artifacts.
How do archaeologists learn about the prehistory of Mississippi by studying lithics? Well like modern-day detectives, archaeologists use lithic artifacts to provide clues concerning the environment in which they were produced and used. Common questions archaeologists ask when studying lithic artifacts include: 1) How old are these stone tools? 2) Where did the rock come from? 3) How were these artifacts produced and in what activities were they used? 4) What clues do lithic artifacts provide concerning the lifeways of the people who produced and used them? All of these questions are important because, if solved, they provide information that helps archaeologists reconstruct how prehistoric peoples lived. In order to answer some of the questions listed above, archaeologists must recreate certain activities, like the production of a stone tool, so that it be can understand what the artifacts they recover represent. This is similar to forensics specialists who use experimental simulations to interpret many pieces of evidence recovered from a crime scene. Detectives may not apprehend the culprit at the crime scene, but they do have clues left behind that can be used to identify the guilty party. Archaeologists are not searching for criminals, but they also use clues, like the waste flakes or debris created when Native Americans were making or repairing their stone tools, to identify what prehistoric groups were doing at a site.
Let’s talk about the questions listed above. First, how can stone tools be used to date a site? Well certain tools like points are known to change stylistically over time, as does many parts of our culture today, so they are considered diagnostic of a time period. Archaeologists have used the law of superposition to order stone tool styles over time. The law of superposition says that the older artifacts are deposited first, therefore, they should be found below more recent artifacts. When archaeologists excavate stratified sites that contain thousands of years of materials they apply the law of superposition to identify which tool style occurred first. This only provides a relative date that says which tool style is older than the other, but through use of radiocarbon dating archaeologist have been able to identify an actual date range during which certain tool styles occurred. Chronological information obtained through diagnostic artifacts is very important because archaeologists study how cultures changed over time.
How do archaeologists in Mississippi know where the rock used to make stone tools came from, and what information does this provide? Fortunately, most rocks used to make stone tools are distinctive and can be related to a general area. Many archaeologists have samples of rocks from all over Mississippi and surrounding states, so that they can be compared with artifacts to determine their place of origin. What does this tell an archaeologist? Well it can help archaeologists understand how large a group’s territory might have been, since many prehistoric groups moved around quite a lot. For example, if a site only contains locally available stone it suggests that the inhabitants of the site were primarily based in that area, whereas if a site contained a good bit of rock from a source 100 miles to the west and another source 50 miles to east, it is likely that the group that left these artifacts occupied this 150 mile stretch of territory over the course of a year. In addition, the presence of rock from very distant sources might indicate that a group was involved in exchange with other groups outside their immediate area.
How do archaeologists identify... will be on the next post...
Read More..
Archaeology at Freshwater Sites (Part I)
by Paul Storch
Introduction
In this article I can only give a brief introduction to the conservation of artifact materials from freshwater archaeological sites. I say “freshwater” rather than “underwater,” because there are significant differences between conservation of objects from a marine, or salt water, environment, and conservation of objects from a freshwater environment, such as Lake Superior and most Minnesota rivers. Treatments developed for marine sites may be unnecessary and uneconomical at best, and do irreversible damage at worst.
The field of archaeological conservation is evolving rapidly from its roots in classical restoration and chemistry into a specialized applied science; we need further development of methods specifically suited to freshwater sites and information exchange at conferences such as the shipwrecks conference.
Under the Water
The major types of materials found on most Great Lakes shipwrecks from the 19th through the late 20th centuries include inorganic (e.g. iron and brass) and organic materials. Most organic objects are made of wood, but often other organics, such as leather, and textile fibers, such as wool and cotton, are preserved.
The key concept to remember with archaeological materials, whether they are buried in the ground, submerged in the water, or buried in submerged sediments, is that these objects have equilibrated with their burial conditions. That is, deterioration has progressed to a certain point and then stopped, or the rate has drastically slowed down.
Well pulley from Fort Snelling, ca 1820-30s; wrought iron is in direct contact with wood. The iron is heavily corroded and the wood is swelled. It is not possible to dismantle objects such as this to attempt to treat the components differently without destroying the object and its integrit
If the equilibrium conditions are maintained in the burial environment, then the materials will remain in a state of preservation. If something happens to disturb the equilibrium— such as archaeological excavation or a natural change, like a drastic drop in waterlevel—the materials will begin to reach equilibrium with the new conditions. This results in renewed deterioration, which in the case of metals can mean the formation of additional oxides, and for wood the loss of water and resultant shrinkage and cracking.
The logical extension of this concept in practical terms is that one must be prepared—with the proper methods and supplies—to re-create as closely as possible the equilibrium after excavation and removal from the burial environment. Failure to do this is the antithesis of ethical conservation practice, and inevitably leads to the loss of information at the least, and total loss of the object at the most.
Chemical considerations will have to wait for another post...
Read More..
Artifacts, Archaeology and Cabeza De Vaca (Part I)
In Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico
By Thomas R. Hester
Introduction
Of all the various routes published for Cabeza de Vaca over the past century, none make any sense, in terms of the archaeological record, except those of Krieger (1961) and Campbell and Campbell (1981). This route (see also Chipman 1987: 143,145), hereafter referred to as the "southern route," (Figure 1) takes Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca and his group from the upper and central Texas coast, across southern Texas, and into northeastern Mexico. Since the archaeological record of this region has existed for only a few decades, earlier scholars could not have made full advantage of the Cabeza de Vaca chronicles in considering the various alternatives for the route. Even today, we can push the "southern route" a bit further south than Krieger, Campbell and Campbell because of what Cabeza de Vaca did not record‹and what we have learned archaeologically about the region in the past 30 years. Most importantly in this planning document, and in the Witte Museum/ Southwest Texas State University planning meetings, we can be fairly confident of this "southern route" and use it to predict the kinds of cultures and cultural materials that Cabeza de Vaca encountered. Then, appropriate artifacts and archaeological cultures can be selected from extant collections for interpretative exhibits.
Cabeza de Vaca and Coastal Native Groups
Based on the recent archaeological studies by Robert Ricklis (1994) on Galveston Island, new insights can be added to the initial phase of Cabeza de Vaca's capture and subsequent movements among coastal peoples. There is little doubt that the Narvaez expedition, of which Cabeza de Vaca was a member, was shipwrecked on Galveston Island or a nearby area of the upper Texas coast. The descriptions of the peoples they encountered match closely the archaeological remains found by Ricklis, though they are perhaps broadly representative of upper coastal cultural adaptations in the early 16th century. Cabeza de Vaca records the use of the bow and arrow, fish weirs or traps and a heavy reliance both on fish and roots during fall and winter on the island. Special mortuary treatment was reserved for children and for "medicine men" (who were cremated). Though the current political situation prevents us from utilizing, in a museum exhibit, any burial materials, Ricklis found that most grave goods were lavished on adult males and children. One adult burial contained what Ricklis (1994:476) describes as a "rat-tooth bloodletting instrument," which he infers to be a "shaman's possession," albeit not with a cremation. If one looks at the Cabeza de Vaca chronicle, the reference to the use of such an item in bloodletting involved a child (probably in northern Mexico or in the Southwestern United States), and the bloodletting, with the use of "sharp mouse teeth" (Covey 1961: 113) was apparently not done by a shaman or medicine man. I will return to this matter at the end of this paper. Ricklis' excavations also produced examples of dwellings (postmold patterns and artifact concentrations) that would be more in line with a long-term occupation by a sizable group of up to several hundred people, perhaps in the fall-winter situation described by Cabeza de Vaca, although he did not specifically describe their houses. Whether these peoples were Karankawa, Akokisa, or some other group, they are more complex in term of social organization and belief systems than Cabeza de Vaca recorded. Clearly, some of the domestic artifacts dating to the early 16th century from Ricklis' excavations, now housed at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory [TARL], at The University of Texas at Austin would be especially appropriate for exhibit. These include arrow points and other stone tools, bone and shell artifacts, and pottery (Covey 1961:55 notes that an "earthen pot" was one of the objects stolen from a native hut on the island; a recent translation of Cabeza de Vaca by Maria Wade of the UT Austin Department of Anthropology indicates that this "pot" was an olla) In addition, reconstructions of house floors (postmold patterns) and food processing areas (hearths) could be done. As I noted above, use of burial goods or even photographs of burials/burial goods would likely result in complaints from Native American groups.
It is during Cabeza de Vaca's presence among the coastal groups that we learn the most about material culture, especially the kinds that survive archaeologically. This is the role of trader that Cabeza de Vaca begun in 1530 when he lived among the "people of Charruco" in the coastal zone south of Galveston Island. Much has been written about Cabeza de Vaca's role as a trader (e.g., Corgan 1969; Wade 1996), but here I will focus specifically on the material goods that he exported and imported, and what that tells us archaeologically. Wade (personal communication, 1996) in her translation of Cabeza de Vaca, indicates that the items he took with him from the coast were: pieces of "sea snails" (conch or other gastropods) and their "hearts" [here, he must be referring to the columella of the conch, widely prized as a raw material], and shells to cut a fruit-like bean with which they cure and make bailes and fiestas [this "bean" would not have survived archaeologically, though a discussion of the identify of this vegetal item would be important].
With these goods, Cabeza de Vaca was able to travel into the interior, apparently crossing territories without conflict. I think this is the result of a trading system of great time depth in southern Texas, in which he just happened to get involved. There is ample archaeological evidence, on which I have written a number of times, of prehispanic trade in southern Texas (cf. Hester 1971a,b, 1980,. 1995). Once in the interior, he traded his coastal goods for the following items, again based on Wade's recent translation: "skins," "red dirt with which they grease and paint their faces and hair" [hematite or red ocher], chert (pedernales) points of arrows, hard cane to make arrow shafts (flechas). glue, and "some tassels which they make of skin of deer and dye red."
Cabeza de Vaca's trading endeavors closely match the archaeological record of the central Texas coast and southern Texas, perhaps even into central Texas and the lower Pecos. Covey's (1961) suggestions of his incursions going into East Texas and Oklahoma can be discounted. The Texas coast was without chippable stone (chert or "flint") and since Archaic times, there is ample evidence of south and central Texas cherts being obtained by coastal peoples to make spear and arrow points. This may have even accelerated in Late Prehistoric times, roughly the era of Cabeza de Vaca, when bison hunting became important on the coastal prairies‹and thus the need for more chert for arrow points, end scrapers, knives, and perforators (Hester and Parker 1970) Chert of pretty good quality is available on the lower Nueces and the lower Guadalupe 15-50 miles upstream from the coast (Chandler 1984). Red ochre or hematite appears in coastal burials (e.g., Hester 1969), as well as in those on the coastal/interior ecotone, such as the Archaic cemetery at Loma Sandia (Taylor and Highley 1995). Skins, arrow shafts, and tassels have left no archaeological trace. I am not sure what "glue" the coastal peoples desired from the interior, perhaps sap from mesquite or similar trees which make a good mastic, however, they had available, and had used since at least 600-800 B.C., asphaltum that washed up on the beaches, and which could be melted and used as an adhesive.
In the interior, marine shell is present at many sites (cf. Hester 1971 a,b, 1980, Black 1986; Highley 1986). Indeed, ornaments of marine shell imported from the Texas coast are found as early as 5800 years ago at the Bering Sink mortuary site in Kerr County (Bement 1994). Marine shell usually occurs as scattered specimens, especially conch shell fragments, conch columella (often made into either tools or disc-shaped beads), and fragments of ribbed cockle shell such as Dinocardium robustum. Here again, it is my distinct impression that the very late Late Prehistoric peoples had more of this material, as at the Hinojosa site near Alice (Black 1986) and site 41LK201 on the Frio River west of Three Rivers (Highley 19860). An alternative to trade would be interaction between coastal and interior groups; Ricklis (1996) has suggested contemporary cohabitation of a coastal margin site, 41RF21, and perhaps during such events, trade would have taken place. But given the time depth of such trade in the interior of south, central and lower Pecos Texas, I suspect that some other mechanism led to an intensification of exchange in the Late Prehistoric. Certainly once shell artifacts had been obtained by interior groups, they could have been "redistributed" through trade during the annual prickly pear harvests.
Cabeza de Vaca in the Interior will have to wait for another post...
Read More..
Buckling Down for Conservation in Albania
As a conservator for the Lofkënd Archaeological Project for the last three seasons, I usually spend my time conserving materials excavated from the tumulus. This year, I also worked on materials from the Lofkënd Survey Project to help the Lofkënd team understand the use of the areas around the tumulus and identify possible sites. Mostly pottery and tile fragments were collected, as well as lithics. Two pieces, however, made their way to the lab for further cleaning and reassembly.
One find consisted of two fragments from the handle of a vessel. Fellow conservator Alma Bardho got right to work cleaning the fragments and joining them together using an archival acrylic resin. Though only the handle of the vessel was found, it’s of interest because the fabric of the ceramic is similar to Iron Age matte painted vessels and fragments found at the Lofkënd tumulus.
I have been working on a belt buckle believed to possibly be from the Ottoman period. The buckle was found in an eroded area near where we were surveying. It is made from a copper alloy and has an organic decoration. The recesses of the decorated area were filled with colored opaque glass — orange, blue, green and white. The buckle is very beautiful and ornate, and I jumped at the chance to clean it.
Because the buckle was in such good condition, it didn’t need a lot of treatment. The metal was not very corroded and only required light cleaning with wooden sticks and a scalpel. The glass has suffered some weathering and appears somewhat flaky in areas, but overall was in fairly good condition. Cleaning these areas was a little tricky because they are so delicate, and it involved very slow and gentle swabbing with ethanol and water to soften the soil on it. The buckle has taken a little longer to clean than expected, but is certainly worth the time when you see the vibrant colors of the glass after the soil is removed. Time is running out on our project and the conservation lab will soon have to be packed up, but I hope to have the treatment completed before then so the piece can be photographed by the project photographer before it is packed for storage.
Vanessa Muros, UCLA
Staff Research Associate in the UCLA/Getty Master’s Program in the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials
Read More..
The Archaic of Thailand (Part II)
The second day of our trip started in Kanchanaburi, where we headed north towards U-Thong, another Dvaravati site. Before we got there, though, we turned down a small side road until we came to a school with a small building off in the corner.
The small building turned out to be a museum, however it was locked. The key was, fortunately, with a person at the school on the same grounds. It turns out that there had been an excavation, and a small museum had been erected to house the artifacts found. Unfortunately, it is unclear just who is responsible for the museum, so it has not been kept up very well. However, we were able to handle some amazing artifacts that the man from the school simply handed around. One was a bracelet approximately 2,000 years old. While the decrepit state of the facilities was lamentable, the opportunity to be that close to history was incredible.
We next traveled to U-Thong. Like many Dvaravati sites, it was surrounded by an irregular moat. The ruins of this chedi (above) were actually on the outside of the moat, surrounded by urban development (as it probably had been for centuries). There is more to be discovered here, but most of it is occupied by squatters, making it difficult to access.
The museum at U-Thong is very much worth the visit. I was doubly impressed because they allowed us to take photos. They have excellent examples of Dvaravati art, including some incredible rare bronze Buddha statues.
Continuing on our tour is like moving forward through the centuries. In Suphanburi, the moat around the old city is almost rectangular, much like later moated cities. Wat Pra Si Rattana Mahatat was once the central temple of the complex, with a Khmer style prang still visible at the back of the current temple complex. Much of the complex relief work can still be seen on the visible plaster.
While at Wat Pra Si Rattana Mahatat, we were fortunate to be able to view an ordination ceremony--one of the happiest moments in a man's life. The entire community comes together for these festivals, and it is a joyous occassion. This parade was traveling clockwise around one of the temple buildings--I believe it was the viharn. The ordination candidate was being carried around beneath a large umbrella, throwing out candy and lucky coins (little 1 Baht coins with a ribbon tied on).
We continued our journey to two temples: Wat Pratu San and Wat Makham No. These temples both contain excellent examples of Lao, Thai, and Chinese influences in the murals all along the inside walls. The primary artist was a displaced Lao brought back from wars in the east in the late 18th, early 19th centuries. He was brought here to work, where he found his brother was also working nearby. Together they both created works that are still admired today.
Our last visit was to Wat Pa Lelai Worawihan, an ancient temple still in use. Much of the temple is new or reconstructed--including this seated Buddha which was built where, it is believed, an ancient Buddha statue once sat. It is, today, one of the most recognizable symbols of this region, and draws a plethora of pilgrims and tourists at all times of the year.
Carved into the plaster of the walls to either side were this monkey and elephant, reverencing the Buddha. These two animals are apparently a common symbol in Buddhist temples.
With nothing more on the itinerary, we returned to Bangkok and the modern world. This has truly been an incredible trip, and I am sure you will here of many more in future posts.
Read More..
