Student Archaeological Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
Published in 2016 by the Editorial Board of STARC Journal
STARC JOURNAL
Content
Editors' Letter
4
Aliens, Archaeology, and the Average Joe: Society’s Shaky
Relationship with the past
Nadine LaPonza
7
The Emerge of Early Towns in Viking Age Scandinavia
Sjoerd van Riel
16
The Potential for Bioarchaeological Assessment of Human
Skeletal Remains in Maritime Contexts
Maddeline Voas
23
Interview: Bjørn Lovén
33
EDITORS' LETTER
We are proud to present the very first issue of STARC Journal!
The field of archaeology is increasing exponentially, with innovative
theories and research methods being introduced on an arguably
weekly basis. Students should be part of this process because they
have the capacity to bring valuable contributions. Students need
a voice in the world of published archaeology, which can be
overwhelming even for experienced researchers. And so the STudent
ARChaeological Journal was born.
When a theory is newly formed, one of the most difficult parts of
the process is putting it on paper -- that is to say, writing an article.
But how does this actually work? Aside from the writing struggle,
there are countless forums and journals where authors can publish
their articles, differentiated by subject, paradigm or perspective.
However, despite all this, we felt the publishing world was lacking
something – a journal aimed towards all students who wish to
publish their first articles, thus developing their academic writing
skills and critical thinking.
Each and every student should have the opportunity to bring forward
their hypotheses and arguments, as well as the chance to be
included in the archaeological community without feeling pressured.
It was from this idea that STARC Journal originated. Founded by five
students, the aim is to encourage university students up to the PhD
level to discuss, write and publish articles on archaeological and
interdisciplinary subjects.
Early on, another angle was adapted within Starc Journal – the digital
world. A massive part of the current archaeological discussion is webbased. The digital landscape provides a great advantage for the
interaction between archaeologists and sites, artefacts, sources,
people and/or debates. STARC Journal is a digital forum, which
means that anyone can contribute from anywhere.
4
Since January 2016 we worked hard to launch this first issue and we
are now happy to present you three intriguing articles written by
students with different backgrounds in the field of archaeology.
In Aliens, Archaeology, and the Average Joe: Society’s
Uncertain Relationship with the Past, Nadine LaPonza draws our
attention to a heated discussion. This article debates the way
archaeology is presented and used by media and politicians to gain
the interest of the public. LaPonza leads us through a maze of
stereotypes and distorted facts that have contributed to the image of
archaeology in the eyes of the public.
Next, Sjoerd van Riel gives an overview of the formation of early
urban settlements of northern Europe in the article The emerge of early
towns in Viking Age Scandinavia. Van Riel discusses the definition of
a town and variations of development patterns between towns in
continental Europe and Scandinavia. By asking questions of how
Viking towns arose, van Riel goes into the aspects of possible
involvement of kings and higher leaders.
We encounter a change of landscape with The Potential
for Bioarchaeological Assessment of Human Skeletal Remains in
Maritime Contexts, where Maddeline Voas explores and discusses
the value of specialization in underwater archaeology. Human
remains found at shipwreck sites can provide valuable information
to archaeologists about life at sea and a variety of techniques can
help archaeologists understand potential trauma, workload or
diseases amongst sailors. Voas puts emphasis on the importance
of using bioarchaeological methods together with osteological
survey techniques often used on land to investigate maritime
contexts.
5
The end of this issue brings you an interview with Dr. Bjørn
Lovén, Associate Professor at the SAXO-Institute, University of
Copenhagen, whose projects within maritime archaeology at Zea &
Lechaion are widely known. By kindly answering our questions, Lovén
provides
great
insight into
the
research
of
underwater
archaeology of the Mediterranean. Even more, Lovén offers some
advice to students interested in exploring submerged sites. We hope
this to be the first in a series of interviews that brings you answers from
the leading faces of archaeology.
Starc Journal was not founded by five editors or journalists, nor
five experts on web design or public relations. We are
simply five students
whom together
have
the
advantage
of
different backgrounds in the field of archaeology. During
these last five months we have realized that it takes a great
deal of work to start an archaeological journal, as well as a great
deal of support. Therefore, we would like to give a special
thank you to our colleagues and the Department of Archaeology
and Ancient History at Lund University. We look forward to
developing STARC Journal and we would like to invite all of you to
be part of STARC Journal’s newly founded motto: success starts
here.
/the Starc team
6
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
Aliens, Archaeology, and the Average Joe: Society’s Shaky
Relationship with the Past
Archaeology, like many sciences, has been bent and distorted to fit various
purposes and agendas, both today and in the past. However, archaeology is
fairly unique in society’s general misunderstanding of its goals and function. For
purposes of both entertainment and politics, the perception of archaeology has
been exploited. This article aims to address these issues and how they reflect and
impact history and society, as well as to suggest solutions and to spark
conversation among both the archaeological and general community.
Keywords: perception, society, politics, entertainment, popular culture, public archaeology
Nadine LaPonza
[email protected]
Lunds Universitet
Today, you might find an archaeologist in a college classroom or out on some farm,
digging and taking measurements. Perhaps you can find one in a lab, at a conference, or even
in a bar. Few of these avenues offer an outlet for archaeologists to discuss their science with
the public. Of course, like anyone else, archaeologists want to discuss their lives’ work with
others, but that can be complicated when others have terrible misconceptions about what
archaeology is and what theories are at the root of the practice. Unfortunately, this is but
a minor consequence of the public’s lack of education about the subject. People are out of
touch with the collective past of humans and they are out of touch with their own heritage.
They are unable to comprehend the cultural value of archaeological material. The most
disturbing consequence, however, seems to be an inability to think critically and to
utilize logic effectively. I realise that that is a hefty statement to make, but allow me to
clarify. The problem isn’t just a lack of education, although that is a major contributor.
Misinformation
is
the
culprit
here
deliberate
–
misinformation
and
deliberate
misrepresentation of information. This opens the gates to what is truly dangerous: political
and ideological manipulation, an evil we are all too familiar with but seemingly all too ready
to ignore.
The debate becomes: who is responsible for the public’s education, or lack thereof?
Should the public be better educated, who should bear this burden if it is agreed that they should
be better educated, and how can awareness of archaeology and archaeological methods and
theories be raised? Finally, what are the consequences, known or potential, of an
archaeologically ignorant society?
7
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
Who is Responsible?
Obviously, modern archaeologists aren’t entirely responsible for the public’s current
view of what we do, but then who is? It seems that we have allowed another group of people
to take over for us, that of liars, frauds, entertainers, and conspiracy theorists. People such as
Erich von Däniken, with the help of outlets such as History (previously the History Channel),
have twisted archaeology, along with its theories and concepts, into a Syfy Channel movie
gone wrong. That said, archaeologists aren’t completely innocent here. Not only have modern
archaeologists played into History’s storytelling, but past archaeologists have damaged the
credibility of the science and altered its representation in fictitious media. As researchers and
scientists, we rely on our credibility, and we are still credible in the scientific
community. However, we need to reclaim it in the laymen’s community. If we don’t step
up to educate others, charlatans, armchair thinkers, and Hollywood producers will do it for
us.
Fact v. Fiction
It should come as no surprise that fictional media, such as movies and video games,
don’t offer a realistic view of archaeology. On one hand, I would like to argue that consumers
are aware that they shouldn’t base their knowledge on fiction; on the other hand, I know this
is not necessarily true. This is evidenced clearly by the alarming decline in United States
shark populations after the release of the 1975 film Jaws.1 As such, fantastical depictions of
fictional archaeologists may play into the public’s lack of understanding. Characters, such as
Lara Croft and Indiana Jones, paint archaeologists as adventurers and thieves, with the
science thrown in as a secondary aspect of the profession. To be fair, Lara Croft comes from
a video game series called Tomb Raider, which has been popular enough to spawn a film
and a reboot; and the Indiana Jones film Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place in the 1930s.
One could argue that, because the very title of the Tomb Raider franchise is so honest
about the protagonist’s motivations and goals, and because the characters in Raiders
of the Lost Ark are so chronologically distanced from modern educated archaeologists,
they do not affect the public view of archaeology. However, the reality seems to be that the
average person does closely associate the science with one or both of these characters.
Had archaeology not evolved from what it was, these caricatures would not be far off.
One of history’s most famous archaeologists, Hiram Bingham, shared some common traits
S Lovgren, ""Jaws" At 30: Film Stoked Fear, Study Of Great White Sharks", News.Nationalgeographic.Com,
2005 <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0615_050615_jawssharks.html> [accessed 6
January 2016].
1
8
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
with Indiana Jones and other fictional archaeologists. He was an adventurer and adjunct
professor
who
led
several
university-funded
expeditions.2
Indy
might
even
be considered almost an accurate portrayal of an early 1900s archaeologist by this
example, which may lend some unfortunate credibility to these characters. In fact,
Bingham’s story even has a parallel theme with archaeological fiction in that he was
searching for the so-called “lost city” of Vilcabamba.3 This theme is common among
the stories of fictional archaeologists and is used as a plot device known as a “trope.”
In her Feminist Frequency video series, Anita Sarkeesian, a popular-culture
critic, defines a trope as “a common pattern in a story or a recognizable attribute in a
character that conveys information to the audience.”
4
The Merriam-Webster online
dictionary defines a trope as “a common or overused theme or device.”5 Specifically,
the trope in question perpetuates a concept of lost civilizations and of exotic locales
and ancient cultures. Often the area is considered dangerous or cursed or is believed to
hold a powerful magical object. Of course it’s rare for these lost civilizations to be
European civilizations. Indiana Jones’s adventures in Raiders of the Lost Ark culminate in
an ancient, booby-trapped temple in Egypt, with the deaths of many people by a sacred
magical object. Lara Croft ventures to places such as Peru to uncover pieces of a mystical
staff and ends up in the mother of all lost civilizations: Atlantis.
While this is all good and fun, not only is it not representative of what archaeologists
deal with on a daily basis, but it equates non-European societies with mysticism
and superstition. Though the conscious aim is not to do so, non-European cultures are
simplified and misrepresented as primal others, with the subliminal implication that the
greatness of their societies was a result not of their technological savvy but of power
bestowed upon them by a greater being.
Further, we archaeologists are not traveling the globe to protect humanity
from heathen magic, and for that matter, curses are not killing us. While this is a common
theme in fantasy and fictional archaeological adventures, the fear of archaeologists triggering
2
"Hiram Bingham III: Machu Picchu Explorer and Politician | Connecticuthistory.Org", Connecticuthistory.Org,
2016 <http://connecticuthistory.org/hiram-bingham-iii-machu-picchu-explorer-and-politician/> [accessed 11
January 2016].
"Hiram Bingham | American Archaeologist and United States Senator", Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016
<http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hiram-Bingham-American-archaeologist-and-United-States-senator>
[accessed 11 January 2016].
3
4
Feminist Frequency, #1 The Manic Pixie Dream Girl (Tropes Vs. Women), 2011
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA> [accessed 6 January 2016].
5
"Trope", Merriam-Webster <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trope> [accessed 6 January 2016].
9
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
curses has found its way off of the screen and into the minds of the people. As of 2009, 38%
of a sample of college students could entertain the notion of a curse on King Tutankhamun’s
tomb killing off the team that found it, while nearly 30% of the sample actually believed
in the curse.6 At the rate science is evolving, these percentages are alarming. The sample
is of a class of college students who should, by this point in their educational careers,
be able to rationalize and think critically. We can’t be too harsh on them, however, as it
seems that what was once assumed to be a reliable source of information for the
casually interested has become a spring of pseudoscientific hypotheses presented as
plausible alternatives to scientific theories.
Specifically, this source is History, formerly known as the History Channel, and their
now-close ties with fictional media are courtesy of Erich von Däniken. In fact, the only thing
setting them apart from fictional media is that they are perceived as having some sort
of authority. This is incredibly problematic as it deprives people of an accessible, reliable
source of information as well as of the ability to discern between archaeological
fact and archaeological fiction.
Erich von Däniken wrote the book “Chariots of the Gods?” and often appears
on History’s series “Ancient Aliens.” The premise of both the book and the television
series is that extra-terrestrials have had a profound effect on human history and
on the development of humans as a species. According to Feder, the hypotheses of von
Däniken – and I would argue of Ancient Aliens, by proxy – are victims to a few logical
errors.7 The first he calls “inkblot,” and he explains that images of past cultures are
interpreted without their historical and cultural context.8 Here, the interpretation is made
through the lens of the modern observer, with their own biases overshadowing any sort of
critical thought. Much like the way one might see faces and animals in cloud formations, the
inkblot approach utilizes an overactive imagination and a self-centred idea of the subject. In
reality, clouds are just clouds.
The second, he explains, is a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of genetics.
Von Däniken suggests that extra-terrestrials mated with our ancestors, producing modern
humans. However, Feder explains that the DNA between humans and these beings would
be far too dissimilar to produce viable offspring.9 Indeed, humans and chimpanzees cannot
K L Feder, Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries, 7th edn, McGraw Hill, New York, 2011, p. 6.
Ibid., p. 224
8
Ibid., p. 225
6
7
9
Ibid., p. 235
10
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
produce viable offspring, and there is only a 1.2% difference genetically.10
The third flaw Feder calls “Our Ancestors, the Dummies.”11 The title here is selfexplanatory: Ancient humans were somehow less intelligent than modern humans and
therefor needed extra-terrestrials to rescue them from their ignorance by teaching them the
ways of monument building and resource production. The idea itself is almost insulting, and
I’m sure if an ancient architect were alive today, they would be quite offended at the
notion. Believe me, it gets worse. When compiling the data of von Däniken’s “research,” it
becomes clear that only certain ancient peoples were incapable of great achievements,
namely those not of European origin. According to Feder, of all the extra-terrestrial
assistance our ancestors have supposedly received, only 4% was directed towards Europeans,
while Africans were assisted 31% of the time, Asians were assisted 23% of the time, and
North and South Americans combined were assisted 42% of the time.12
Please allow me to introduce the concept of Occam’s razor. Feder explains the
concept quite succinctly when he states that the “hypothesis that best explains a series of
observations with the fewest other assumptions of leaps… is the best explanation.”13
Those who have learned about archaeology only from History likely have not been
acquainted with the idea, or have not applied it to archaeology and pseudoarchaeology. This
concept is critical to analysing claims, and as we will examine, the general public lacking this
ability can have dire penalties.
Implications and Ethics
I mentioned that “Our Ancestors, the Dummies” is offensive, but it is also dangerous.
Indirectly, it upholds the ideals of white supremacy that only white men are capable of
intelligence, creativity, and industriousness. Science and pseudoscience have been used in the
past to justify heinous crimes against humanity, from slavery to genocide to merely
being considered human enough to participate in the dominant society. Claims have been
made that non-European races are inferior to European races based on qualities such as skull
formation and disease resistance, which may vary greatly even within a community.
"DNA: Comparing Humans And Chimps", American Museum Of Natural History, 2015
<http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-andbernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps>
[accessed 17 December 2015].
10
J T Omohundro, “Von Däniken’s Chariots: A Primer in the Art of Crookes Science”, Zetetic, 1(1), 1976, p.
th
58-67 cited in K L Feder, Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries, 7 edn, McGraw Hill, New York, 2011, p. 235
12
K L Feder, "Foolsgold Of The Gods", The Humanist, Jan./Feb., 1980, p. 20-23 cited in K L Feder, Frauds,
Myths, And Mysteries, 7th edn, McGraw Hill, New York, 2011, p. 245
11
13
Feder, p. 35
11
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
As a whole, we have come a long way. Racism and ethnocentrism are challenged by
an ever-growing portion of the population. However, we are seeing high rates of
xenophobia, particularly in the form of Islamophobia, in both Europe and North America.
Parallels have been drawn between the treatment of today’s refugees and those seeking
asylum during the Holocaust. Another parallel may be noted here, and that is of the use of a
misrepresentation of the past for political purposes, namely territorial expansion.
In his lecture titled Pseudoarchaeology and Nationalism, Ethan Watrall lists five main
motivations behind manipulating the past: money, fame, nationalism, religion, and romanticism.14 He goes on to define nationalism, which will be the focus here, as an “ideology
shared by an ethnic group or geographic/demographic population as to their uniqueness
(compared to other groups) based on cultural traits and practices.”
The Third Reich was notorious for altering and fabricating archaeological evidence to
instill nationalism in the German people, and to gain support for their cause. Himmler himself
is reported to have said, “The one and only thing that matters to us… is to have ideas of
history that strengthen our people in their necessary national pride.”15 Beyond strengthening
the peo-ple’s national pride, archaeological “discoveries” were used to justify the expansion
of Germany’s territory, and though it often worked, there were times when projects were
abandoned because evidence was too questionable for the international archaeological
community.16 Had the public been more discerning, perhaps Nazism would have had less
support and a smaller effect on history. It is difficult to say, but with so many resources
funneled into the objective, it is obvious that the Third Reich viewed these tactics as crucial
to their movement.
Fast-forward to today’s conflict with the Islamic State. The group is quite successfully
spreading terror across the world, causing millions to flee their homes, and yet it is still drawing
in new members. On April 11, 2015, the Islamic State released a video of the deliberate destruction of the pre-Islamic archaeological site, Nimrud.17 The goal seems to be to establish
the group as one of holy authority, particularly to the locals.18 This is evident in the language
choice but also because such an appeal can only be effectively made if the target shares
14
E Watrall, Lecture 9 - Pseudoarchaeology And Nationalism, 2012 <http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp364fs15/files/2012/10/ANP364-Pseudoarchaeology-Nationalism-Lecture-9.pdf> [accessed 11 January 2016].
15
B Arnold, "The Past As Propaganda: How Hitler’S Archaeologists Distorted European Prehistory To Justify
Racist And Territorial Goals", Archaeology, July/August 1992, 30-37.
16
Ibid.
K Romey, "Why ISIS Hates Archaeology and Blew Up Ancient Iraqi Palace", News.Nationalgeographic.Com,
2015 <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150414-why-islamic-state-destroyed-assyrian-palacenimrud-iraq-video-isis-isil-archaeology/> [accessed 11 January 2016].
18 Ibid.
17
12
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
similar beliefs. Michael Danti explains in an article for National Geographic that the Islamic
State is attempting to pit locals against the outraged global community, thereby attracting
more to their cause.19
What Should We Do?
With such far-reaching consequences, it should be clear that we should not allow
archaeology to be manipulated. It seems important to make sure archaeological finds are
shared with the world as a piece of our universal heritage. It is suggested by Scarre and
Scarre that this can help to diminish “ideological and political motivation.”20
Particularly, it can help decrease nationalism. However, the first step is to get people
involved and paying attention to the realities of archaeology and the past.
Books have been published debunking the hypotheses of von Däniken and others like
him. Museums are available to the public in many parts of the world. The Internet is available
to and utilized by 3.2 billion people and is brimming with information, if the consumer is
aware of how to dissect and analyse it.21 Truly, anyone who wishes to learn about
archaeology has the power to do so. All of these efforts should be continued, and should be
even more vigorous when a political misuse of archaeology is involved. That said, the trouble
here is not a lack of information but a lack of engaging information. We should work to
make true archaeology much more interesting to the casually intrigued.
Efforts to make archaeology interesting can span a variety of outlets. Television series
for adults as well as for children should be produced in a captivating fashion and should
feature an accurate portrayal of archaeology, and archaeologists can consult with
video game developers to affect that industry. Although working with independent
developers will not allow accuracies to reach as many gamers as would be the case with
mainstream developers, it is a good place to start, at least.
My final suggestion is for archaeologists to get involved in local and national cultural
events and festivals, and parks and centres dedicated to learning about archaeology can be
introduced. At these centres and events, the public will be allowed to participate in
experimental archaeology, not only increasing their knowledge of the target culture but also
of the science and how to evaluate it.
In this way, I am absolutely advocating that archaeologists become involved in their
communities. We should not wait for friends or strangers to seek us out. People are interested
in archaeology and they are interested in the past, otherwise they wouldn’t latch on to such
farfetched ideas of how the pyramids were built, and they wouldn’t consume fictional
archaeological media on such a mass scale. People want to participate, whether they’re
raiding tombs or forging medallions, and we should give them every reasonable opportunity
to do so without expecting a commitment.
19
Ibid.
C Scarre & G Scarre, The Ethics Of Archaeology, Cambridge, UK, 2006, p. 238-239.
21
J Davidson, "Here's How Many Internet Users There Are", MONEY.Com, 2015
<http://time.com/money/3896219/internet-users-worldwide/> [accessed 6 January 2016].
20
13
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
The objective is not to make every doctor, cashier, and bartender an archaeologist, but
to enlighten them so that they may critically assess media and information, and so our society
doesn’t fall into the trap of basing political decisions on a distorted view of the past.
References
American Museum of Natural History. 2015. "DNA: Comparing Humans And Chimps". [Accessed
December 17]. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-andcultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dnacomparing-humans-and-chimps.
Arnold, B, "The Past As Propaganda: How Hitler’S Archaeologists Distorted European Prehistory To
Justify Racist And Territorial Goals", Archaeology, July/August 1992, 30-37.
Davidson, J, "Here's How Many Internet Users There Are", MONEY.Com, 2015
<http://time.com/money/3896219/internet-users-worldwide/> [accessed 6 January 2016].
Feder, KL, Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries, 7th edn, McGraw Hill, New York, 2011.
Feminist Frequency, #1 The Manic Pixie Dream Girl (Tropes Vs. Women), 2011
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA> [accessed 6 January 2016].
"Hiram Bingham | American Archaeologist and United States Senator", Encyclopedia Britannica,
2016 <http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hiram-Bingham-American-archaeologist-and-UnitedStates-senator> [accessed 11 January 2016].
"Hiram Bingham III: Machu Picchu Explorer and Politician | Connecticuthistory.Org",
Connecticuthistory.Org, 2016 <http://connecticuthistory.org/hiram-bingham-iii-machu-picchuexplorer-and-politician/> [accessed 11 January 2016].
Lovgren, S, ""Jaws" At 30: Film Stoked Fear, Study Of Great White Sharks",
News.Nationalgeographic.Com, 2005
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0615_050615_jawssharks.html> [accessed 6
January 2016].
Romey, K, "Why ISIS Hates Archaeology and Blew Up Ancient Iraqi Palace",
News.Nationalgeographic.Com, 2015 <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150414-whyislamic-state-destroyed-assyrian-palace-nimrud-iraq-video-isis-isil-archaeology/> [accessed 11
January 2016].
14
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
Scarre, C & Scarre, G, The Ethics Of Archaeology, Cambridge, UK, 2006, p. 238-239.
"Trope", Merriam-Webster <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trope> [accessed 6
January 2016].
Watrall, E, Lecture 9 - Pseudoarchaeology And Nationalism, 2012
<http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp364-fs15/files/2012/10/ANP364-PseudoarchaeologyNationalism-Lecture-9.pdf> [accessed 11 January 2016].
15
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
The Emerge of Early Towns in Viking Age Scandinavia
While in continental Europe ‘proto urban settlements’ already existed for
hundreds of years as a legacy of the Roman Empire, in the remote are of
Scandinavia proto-urbanism only started in the period that is known as the
Viking Age. The reasons for Scandinavian towns to suddenly arise in a
relatively short period of time has been the subject of scholarly debate for
many years and is part of a bigger discussion concerning the so called
‘emporia’, as which the sites connected to craft and long-distance trade in
early medieval northern Europe are known since Richard Hodges’ book
“Dark Age Economics”. In this article I will firstly discuss the debate
concerning
secondly
the
a
origin
of
couple
‘urban’
of
settlements
examples
of
in
Scandinavia,
Viking
Age
and
towns.
Keyword: Viking Age, Scandinavia, urbanisation
Sjoerd van Riel
Lund University
[email protected]
Introducing the concepts of town and urbanisation
When discussing towns, one first needs to determine what a town defines. Generally, in
archaeology we are speaking about a town when its inhabitants are not producing their own
food but undertake non-agrarian activities and depend on the surrounding rural population
for their food. They focus on crafting and trading, and the towns itself is the focus point for
the surrounding area where people come together to acquire objects and goods that are
produced or traded in the town. Furthermore, towns are permanently inhabited by a separate
community, in the contrary to the many seasonal trading markets that existed throughout the
Viking Age.1 Scholars have proposed a range of additional characteristics that are
typical for towns, such as defences, a mint, planned street system, diversified economic
base, social differentiation, complex religious organization and a judicial centre.
However, towns in different parts of Europe have been created under very different
circumstances and therefore we cannot use these characteristics as fixed criteria, but only
as guidelines of what to look for when trying to identify early medieval towns.2 The
very terms ‘town’ and ‘urbanisation’ themselves are debatable, since they are loaded with
preconceptions and may be too much associated with phenomena which occurred only later in
1 Skre, 2012,
2 Schofield &
p. 84,87
Steuer, 2007, p. 111
16
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
the medieval period and were of a significant different nature from the events in the early Viking
Age.3 However, in this paper I will continue using the terms ‘town’ and ‘urbanisation’ because
they are still so widely used in academic literature and debates.
Pre-town trading settlements and the origin of towns
Let us first shortly examine what kind of settlements existed before towns came up in
Scandinavia. Trade and exchange of goods are phenomena that originated long before the
Viking Age, but the circumstances in which they occurred differed for periods and regions. In
Scandinavia, early medieval towns did not naturally evolve from the Roman settlements as in
continental Europe, since Scandinavia was never incorporated in the RomanEmpire.
Instead, trade before the Viking Age took place in seasonal markets. These markets
sometimes had buildings like sunken huts, but they were designed mostly as workshops and
not as permanent living areas.4 The markets were used in certain periods of the year. Some
scholars suggest that winter was the favourable time since in that period sledding over the
frozen lakes using bone skates allowed for quicker transportation than in summer,5 while
others think that summer would be better because of easier sailing conditions.6
In addition to the non-permanent character, another characteristic that puts these
markets in a different category than the later towns is the absence of plot-division. However,
the spatial organisation within the markets was not completely random. In some of the
markets, craft-production took place in a specific area, while another area was probably
reserved for the trading of finished products.7 A third difference between the seasonal
markets and the towns is the absence of extensive import of goods such as raw materials,
wine or pottery, and the absence of the use of silver as currency at the markets.8 Even though
imported goods can be found at the markets, these are often interpreted as ‘prestige goods’,
and not as commercial trading goods; mostly coming from the Roman Empire in the first
centuries AD and used in the gift-exchange of local rulers. 6
3 Sindbæk,
2007, p. 129
pp. 447,453; Skre, 2012, p. 87
5 Clarke & Ambrosiani, 1991, p. 133
6 Skre, 2007, p. 447
7 Skre, 2007, p. 454
8 Skre, 2007, p. 455; 2012, p. 87
4 Skre, 2007,
17
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
The earliest towns in Scandinavia emerged in the eighth century AD. First Birka in
modern day Sweden (second half of the eighth century), then Ribe and Hedeby in Denmark
(late eighth and early ninth century) and Kaupang in Norway (ca. 800). After about two
centuries without any new towns emerging, a second wave of towns arose around AD
1000, with Sigtuna and Lund in modern day Sweden, Åhus and Roskilde in Denmark and
Oslo and Trondheim in Norway.9 Striking is the discontinuity between these two waves of
town emerging. The former four towns all disappear in the ninth and tenth century. The
reasons for this have been extensively debated. Proposed explanations include decreasing
harbour and sailing conditions, but these are not fully satisfying.10
The towns in the two different phases of the Viking Age arose in different
circumstances. Whereas the early Viking Age towns were supervised or controlled by more
or less local rulers who depended on personal ties and charisma to stabilize their dominion,
the towns created in the late Viking Age were deliberate institutions set up by the first kings
of the three Scandinavian kingdoms; Sweden, Denmark and Norway.11 This change of reign
went hand in hand with a change in religion and institutionalised power. The Christian
church worked closely together with the new kings and it is therefore no coincidence that
many of the newly created towns can be seen not only as successors, but even as (religious)
replacements of their neighbouring ‘central places’ of the early Viking Age, as is the case
with for example Lejre – Roskilde and Uppåkra – Lund.12
In the remaining part of this paper, I will not go in depth on the debate about the later Viking
Age towns, but instead discuss the debate and problems regarding the nature and
complications of the earliest Viking towns.
On the function of towns
One of the main questions is how these early Viking towns arose. Did they naturally develop
from an existing place where people gathered, or were they supervised or even completely
set up by someone? The archaeological and historical evidence suggests the latter. Out of
the four early Viking Age towns, only Ribe seems to have evolved from a seasonal market,
9 Skre, 2012,
pp. 84-85
85
11 Skre, 2012, p. 86
12 Skre, 2012, p. 86
10 Skre, 2012, p.
18
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
the other three have been founded on virgin ground.13 This argument of the towns as newly
founded institutions is at odds with the early standpoint of Richard Hodges (1982), who
divided his emporia in several subtypes, in which ‘type A’ emporia such as Helgö were
seasonal predecessors for ‘type B’ emporia such as Birka.14 This point of view has then been
severely criticized,15 one of the arguments being that the continuity between emporias of
type A and B as Hodges saw it was not correct since, as discussed before, only Ribe seems to
have evolved from a seasonal market. What most scholars agree on, however, is that all of
the new towns or emporia have some kind of connection with royal power, e.g. in the form
of minting (Ribe) or the presence of a royal estate as in Birka or Kaupang.16 The regular plots
and street plans also point towards an organized construction of the towns.17 According to
Hodges
14
, a possible explanation for the sudden emerge of institutionalised towns all over
northern Europe is the engagement of kings, who founded the new trade centres or
emporias in order to stay in control over the traded goods. By creating a defined and
controllable trading area, the kings could supervise the traded (‘prestige’) goods, without
losing them to foreign merchants.18 The clearest example of the Scandinavian kings as active
agents in founding towns is Hedeby in Denmark. According to the Royal Frankish Annals, King
Godfred of Denmark came with his fleet in 808 and sacked the Slavonic trading centre of
Reric. He escorted all the merchants to a place called Sliesthorp, which is associated with the
newly founded town of Hedeby.19 This town was founded at the southern border of the
Danish kingdom. One of the reasons for this might be that these border areas were the
places which had the best potential to become popular trading places because of their
position on the political, economic and cultural border, which could attract foreign
merchants as well as Danish ones.20
There are several examples of flourishing trading towns in border areas, such as Ribe
which was located at the border between the Danish and the Frisian areas. The positioning
13 Skre, 2012, p.
87
pp. 50-52
15 e.g. Clarke & Ambrosiani, 1991, p. 71; Skre, 2008, p. 335
16 Skre, 2012, p. 87-88
17 Skre, 2012, p. 89
18 Hodges, 1982, p. 54
14 Hodges, 1982,
19
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
of the new emporias in border areas seems to have been a general trend, not only in
Scandinavia but also in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and the Frankish empire.21 In this way,
rulers could supervise the safety in these trading ports from a royal residence, and at the
same time have a personal eye on events happening and people entering their kingdoms.
This period could mark a change in the Scandinavian concept of lordship from a rather
socially defined lordship to a territorial one. Instead of an influential sphere centred around
an aristocratic residence and influence through alliances and military presence, lordship was
now territorially defined with physical borders, the emporia being one of the physical
markers of these borders.22
However, not all scholars agree on the degree of influence from the kings. Søren
Sindbæk23 stresses the importance of the interdepence of the traders rather than a coercive
power concerning the protection of peace in trading centres.23 Furthermore, he argues that
the location of the emporias, or ‘nodal points’ as he calls them, at border areas are more a
consequence of favourable natural and geographical locations, e.g. places where a
topographical barrier forces the break of traffic, a trans-shipment and maybe a temporary
storage of the goods. Therefore, the choice of the sites could be as much a consequence of
the interests of travelling merchants and the conditions of the natural geography as it was the
consequence of the ambition and interference of a ruler.24 I think the truth lies somewhere in
the middle of these standpoints. There is enough evidence from coins, written and
archaeological sources that rulers influenced and probably even supervised the foundation of
new towns, but I believe that these rulers did not possess enough power to position a town in
a certain location solely based on their own interests. I think the power of commerce and the
influence of traders and craftsmen was already too big for that, after all it was the presence of
these merchants and artisans on which the success of a town as a centre of trade depended
in the end.
Next to a commercial character, the early Viking Age towns also seem to have had a
cult function. One reason for this might be that a sacred character, together with military
21 Skre, 2007, p.
460
461
23 Sindbæk, 2007, p. 128
22 Skre, 2007, p.
20
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
presence, helped secure the peaceful environment that is needed to attract merchants.25
This could also be one of the reasons for early churches being constructed in these trading
towns, such as the ones in Ribe and Hedeby in the mid 850’s. The presence of a Christian
community, however small, resulted in the attraction of more Christian Frankish merchants
coming from Dorestad and other major Frankish emporias, who brought with them
commodities that were much wanted in the northern world, such as wine from the
Rhineland area.26
Conclusion and some problems explained
The origin of towns in Scandinavia is a much debated subject. First of all, we have question if
we can use the terms ‘town’ and ‘urban’ to describe Viking Age settlements, and prevent that
the terminology we use pushes us towards preconceptions which are connected to these
terms. Secondly, there are many questions regarding Viking Age towns that remain open for
debate. Most of the discussion focusses on the degree of influence practiced by the rulers of
the time. Where they the active agents that some scholars suggest, or were they just trying to
influence an ongoing development as much as they could? As I already explained earlier in
this essay, I think the answer to this question lies somewhere in the middle.
Another problem we are facing has to do with one of the main sources used for this
debate: archaeological excavations. Evidence coming from this source is per definition very
fragmentary. Only a very small percentage of past society can be excavated and only a very
small percentage of the excavated area is actually preserved. Many materials that could be of
importance for the debate such as textiles, wood and other organic material usually leave
very little traces in the archaeological record. This tends to lead scholars to draw conclusions
which might be incomplete, since they are based on very fragmented evidence. However, if
the level of fragmentation of the evidence is taken into account in the questions that we ask,
and if we combine evidence coming from multiple disciplines such as archaeology, geology,
history and numismatics, we can come to a greater understanding of how these early Viking
towns came into existence and what influenced their geographic positioning.
25 Skre, 2007, p.
26 Skre, 2007, p.
451-452
462
21
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
References
Clarke, H, & Ambrosiani, B. (1991). Towns In The Viking Age, n.p.: Leicester.
Hodges, R. (1982). Dark Age Economics : The Origins Of Towns And Trade A.D. 600-1000,
n.p.: London.
-2012, Dark Age Economics : A New Audit, n.p.: London.
Schofield, J. & Steuer, H. (2007). Urban settlement. In: J. Graham-Campbell and M. Valor,
ed., The Archaeology of Medieval Europe, 1st ed. Aarhus.
Sindbæk, SM. (2007). 'Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking
Age Scandinavia', Antiquity, 81, 311, pp. 119-132.
Skre, D. (2008). Post-substantivist Towns and Trade: AD 600-1000. In D. Skre, ed., Means of
Exchange, Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age (Kaupang Excavation Project Publication
Series, Volume 2).
-2012. The development of urbanism in Scandinavia. In: S. Brink and N. Price, ed., The Viking
World, 2nd ed. New York.
22
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
The Potential for Bioarchaeological Assessment of Human Skeletal
Remains in Maritime Contexts
This
paper
explores
the
importance
of
specialization pertaining
to
underwater sites, particularly the importance of bioarchaeology in interpreting
human remains found at sites. Human skeletal remains that are found at
shipwreck sites could potentially offer a unique insight of life at sea.
Bioarchaeologists are skilled at discerning skeletal pathologies, trauma,
musculoskeletal stress markers indicative of activity patterns, and detecting
taphonomic modifications of bone. The frequency of recovering remains in
maritime contexts will be explored through various case studies to evaluate
the necessity of bioarchaeological specialization in a maritime context. The
purpose of this paper is to utilize research in the field of bioarchaeology and
case examples in an effort to either demonstrate the importance of the inclusion
of bioarchaeology in the field of nautical archaeology or to illustrate the
importance of expanding nautical archaeology into other fields in an effort to
gain a multifaceted understanding of this field.
Keywords: bioarchaeology, maritime archaeology, underwater bone preservation
Maddeline Voas
University of West Florida
[email protected]
Introduction
For terrestrial archaeological sites, bioarchaeologists are the primary individuals
tasked with understanding and interpreting human remains. The study of bioarchaeology stems
from two sub-disciplines of anthropology: biological anthropology and archaeology.
Bioarchaeology is 1the ‘study of human skeletal remains from archaeological settings to aid in
reconstructing the biological and cultural pasts of populations’.1 There is a debate on correct
terminology in nautical archaeology, with the terms ‘underwater archaeology’, ‘shipwreck
1
Weiss, 2009. p. 1.
23
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
archaeology’, ‘maritime archaeology’, and ‘nautical archaeology’ all having separate
meanings. However, for the purposes of this paper, these terms will be utilized interchangeably
as the study of archaeological sites in an underwater setting or a setting relating to maritime
culture. Both bioarchaeology and maritime archaeology are fairly recent sub-disciplines. This
may explain the lack of specialization in underwater contexts. For example, only three schools
in the United States have specific maritime archaeology programs, the University of West
Florida being one of them.
Human Remains in Marine Contexts
There are no specified requirements on who should be the primary individual tasked
with recovering skeletal material at an archaeological site, but in the academic community, it
is generally accepted that an individual with an advanced knowledge of osteology should be the
one appointed with such a task. If human remains are known to be at a particular underwater
site, the osteologist should be involved during the planning stages so that they can take a
position of advising in order to directly supervise during the process of uncovering human
remains to make sure it is done properly. 2 Most cases where individuals are recorded underwater
are in ‘temperate shallow coastal locations’. 3 Typically, the context of these remains will be
in a shipwreck environment, as a result of a catastrophic event, and most of these
shipwrecks are of warships. This means the biological profile will be fairly consistent, with
males of similar occupation.4
Potential Bioarchaeological Assessment of Life at Sea
Poor diet on board, which has been reported in historical accounts, could result in a
variety of vitamin deficiencies which make themselves evident on bone. Iron deficiency is
caused by a scarce amount of meat consumption or consuming a substantial amount of iron
inhibiting foods, as well as parasitic infections. 5 This pathology is evident through the porosity
2
Mays, 2008. p. 124.
3
Mays, 2008. p. 124.
4
Mays, 2008. p. 127.
5
Weiss, 2009. p. 47.
24
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
of bone in two primary places: the orbits of the eye, called cribra orbitalia, and of the cranium,
called porotic hyperostosis. I hypothesize that dental hygiene at sea was not paramount, and
therefore evidence of poor dental care may be evident on human remains. This can be seen
through an analysis of dental caries, dental calculus, and abscesses. 6 The analysis of dental
caries will lend itself to understanding the kind of diet of those on board, or even distinguish
the diet between individuals of low class and an individual of high class who may have been on
board at the time of the wreck. When analyzing a population in an archaeological setting, the
rate of carious lesions on teeth is one of the most effective means of diet and health
reconstruction, according to Weiss. 7 Historical accounts and archaeological findings verify that
a proportion of sailors suffered from syphilis. Both endemic and venereal syphilis leave
evidence on bones. In the case of shipwrecks, sailors may have had venereal syphilis, which is
evident in the os coxae, patella, cranium, and bones of the elbow. 8
One of the most notorious pathologies that may be evident on bone caused by life at
sea would be scurvy, which is caused by a dietary deficiency of vitamin C. The dietary deficiency
stems from an insufficient supply of a variety of foods that those on board may not have had
access to during a long voyage, such as milk, meat, vegetables, and fruits. Using radiographic
technology, analysis of scurvy is non-specific when looking at the skeletal features of the
pathology and can be present as osteopenia on the vertebrae, the os coxae, the ribs, as well as
on the long bones with a particular characteristic of unevenness around the knee and ankle
regions. 9 When relating to the vertebrae, compression fractures may have occurred as a result
of the osteopenia, which could also be recognized in the diagnosis. One precaution that must
be understood before definite pathology diagnosis caused by life at sea, are that the
pathologies evident in the skeletal record usually have been occurring for a length of time and
may have pre-dated that individual’s life at sea. One way to combat this precaution is
6
Weiss, 2009. p. 50.
7
Weiss, 2009. p. 50.
8
Weiss, 2009. p. 53.
9
Brickley and Ives, 2008. p. 63.
25
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
determining whether the skeletal lesion indicative of a particular pathology is an active lesion. If
it was active at the time of death, this confirms that the individual suffered from this pathology
while on the ship. 10
Cross-sectional geometry studies of long bones can be conducted on the human
remains found at a shipwreck site because this type of analysis would be beneficial if a
substantial amount of human remains were found at a shipwreck site for purposes of
determining the division of labor in that sample population. Cross-sectional asymmetry could
also be used in determining dominance between right and left bones, commonly that of the
humerus to differentiate between handedness. 11 Musculoskeletal stress markers (MSMs) could
also be used to determine activity patterns of those on board. Musculoskeletal stress markers
are classified as marks on the skeleton in areas of muscle or ligament insertion where repeated
stress occurs at an insertion site, osteoblastic activity occurs at this site, and there is a
subsequent increase of the MSM specified. 12 In addition to musculoskeletal stress markers,
analyses of osteoarthritis on a specific joint would also lend itself to interpretation of activity
patterns at sea.
Post-Depositional Processes
In order to accurately utilize the aforementioned analyses, there must be an
understanding of the taphonomic processes that happen to a body after death in marine
contexts. Much like terrestrial scavengers, marine scavengers leave certain modifications on
bone. During the process of decomposition, terrestrial scavengers usually produce gnaw marks
(rodent) or pitting caused by carnivore activity (fox). Marine scavengers are known to consume
carrion of marine mammals and fish and will utilize carrion of human remains just the same. 13
According to Casper’s Ratio, human remains decompose twice as slow if in a body of water as
10
Mays, 2008. p. 130.
11
Weiss, 2009. p. 10.
12
Weiss, 2009. p. 21.
13
Sorg et al., 1997. p. 569.
26
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
compared to an open air site. 14 Therefore, this is two times the amount of potential animal
scavenging activity on the decomposing remains as opposed to a terrestrial open air site. The
marine scavengers that could potentially create impressions on the bones are various ‘fishes,
gastropod mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms’. 15 Certain marine animals prefer specific
regions of the body, such as crabs preferring the eyes and flesh of the face, which would leave
marks in the eye orbits and the splanchnocranium. There is also the concept of erosion or
postmortem eburnation of various bones that must be understood due to taphonomic
processes. Sediments that are driven by currents can result in abrasions with the bone and
breaking of bones could result from a hard impact with rocks on the sea floor. 16 Remains that
are underwater will become commingled based on a variety of factors, such as water currents.
Understanding the sedimentation process at a particular shipwreck site will also explain why
some bones are in better shape than others.
Technique and Technology
Interpreting the need for bioarchaeologists within maritime archaeology necessitates
the question of how frequently bones are recovered in underwater contexts. According to
Hershey, important findings of human remains have been discovered in over twelve wellknown shipwrecks: the HMS Monitor, the HL Hunley, and the La Belle shipwreck to name a
few. 17 However, there have been few sufficient collections that have been studied for purposes
of osteology or bioarchaeology. 18 One example where substantial human remains were found
and studied was on the Mary Rose shipwreck, where there was a minimum number of
individuals (MNI) of 179 individuals. 19
14
Mann, 1902. p. 54.
15
Sorg et al., 1997. p. 569.
16
Mays, 2008. p. 125.
17
Hershey, 2012. p. 365.
18
Mays, 2008. p. 128.
19
Bell and Elkerton, 2008. p. 526.
27
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
The presence of skeletal remains during underwater archaeological excavations has
been found in shipwrecks dating to the late Roman Empire. On this basis alone, it is vital that an
individual with advanced knowledge of osteology should be on the recovery mission, or that
bioarchaeologists should be trained in underwater excavation methods and become certified in
diving. This should be done as a precautionary measure to ensure that they can react much the
same as a terrestrial site where bones have been uncovered if they are ever called to an
excavation site that is underwater.
Another concern is how well bone preserves in a marine environment, because if
preservation is poor and bone is altered severely, this would inhibit bioarchaeological research.
Arnaud et al. conducted research on how bones preserve in seawater and utilized seven long
bones that came from wreck sites off the coast of Cape Dramont and near Sainte-Marguerite
Island in France. 20 These researchers found that the only major change was that there was an
overall increase in weight caused by the increase of the inorganic portion of bone and that
microorganisms do in fact bore into the bone, but the overall deterioration is very limited. 21
Based on this study, there are no present issues surrounding the preservation of bone
underwater that would in any way inhibit a bioarchaeological/osteological analysis of
submerged human remains.
Case Example
The Mary Rose was a ship that was a part of King Henry VIII's fleet, which sunk in the
16th century. Ann Stirland analyzed the remains found on the vessel and she revealed many
features on the skeletal remains that give us clues about the physical activities of the ship's
crew. 22 Stirland looked at the robusticity index using the humerus and femur and then
compared this population to a population from a similar time period who came from Norwich. 23
She found that there were no major differences between the left and right femur when
20
Arnaud et al., 1980. p. 53.
21
Arnaud et al., 1980. p. 62-63.
22
Stirland, 2012. p. 47-74.
23
Stirland, 2012. p. 56.
28
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
compared to the skeletal population from Norwich but when analyzing the humerus, there was
more robusticity associated with the right humerus in the Norwich population. This pattern was
not evident in the skeletal population from the Mary Rose. This means that the crew did not
exhibit a dominant arm and instead used arms equally in activities. This analysis is associated
with the first assumption that additional bone reflects additional muscle using the foundation
of long bone asymmetry. There were not very many traumatic injuries associated with this
population and also a minor amount of fractures. However, there was a high prevalence of
avulsion fractures on the bones of the feet that Stirland attributes to landing onto unstable
surfaces, which could be a believable activity for life at sea. 24 It was unusual to note that there
was little osteoarthritis found on the skeletal remains, which can be an indicator of bodily stress
and physical activity. Stirland found that there were instances of vertebral body pitting in the
demographically young males and also ossified spinal ligaments which could be attributed to
heavy manual labor, such as hauling heavy materials.
Interestingly, Stirland makes a connection between longbow usage and the high
prevalence of os acromiale on the left scapula. 25 When looking at the areas on bone associated
with muscle attachments in the arms and shoulders, there were changes associated with
persistent use, an example of a musculoskeletal stress marker. This analysis could also be
attributed to long bow use because the changes are relevant to the raising and lowering of the
arms. The left shoulder dimensions were longer on these individuals. The left arm was also
known to be the dominant arm that held the bow. Based on context, there were individuals
believed to have been part of the gun crew. 26 One of these individuals had a spine that
resembled that of an elderly person with new bone growth at the muscle attachment sites and
the spinal joints. Because of the known context and a basic understanding of the laborious
nature of life at sea, some behaviors of the crew were able to be identified using
musculoskeletal markers, biomechanical analysis, trauma, and prevalence of osteoarthritis.
24
Stirland, 2012. p. 62.
25
Stirland, 2012. p. 69.
26
Stirland, 2012. p. 72.
29
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
Overall the crew exhibited bone robusticity which in turn meant higher muscle content. The
specified skeletal markings of stress consistently indicated repeated activity patterns, in the
case of the archer remains and those of the gun crew.
Aside from Stirland’s 2012 analysis of the human remains found on the Mary Rose
shipwreck, there was another study conducted by Bell and Elkerton, where marine taphonomy
was studied, particularly related to microstructural alterations caused by marine
microorganisms. 27 It is important to understand the depositional environment that the remains
existed in, and in this case, upon the lifting of the watercraft and excavation, it was discovered
that the ship rested on the starboard side which created an artificial bottom during the
sedimentation process. 28 Analyses of sediment deposits were also important for this study and
they found there were four periods of sedimentation. The human remains were within the first
two sedimentation layers, therefore, the third and fourth layers will not be discussed in this
case example. The first, the Tudor layer, occurred within several months of the wreck and some
of the remains were buried under this layer. According to Bell and Elkerton, during the second
sedimentation layer formation process, the hull malformed and the context of the shipwreck
was consequently more exposed to the outside marine environment.
In this same study, a microanalysis of teeth was conducted in an effort to find
microscopic configurations caused by tunneling of microorganisms. It was found that the
human remains from the first Tudor layer did not have any microstructural changes. Bell and
Elkerton attributed this to the fact that this sedimentation period occurred during winter,
where the cold waters would not have been a safe habitat for the microorganisms responsible
for tunneling. 29 The human remains in the second Tudor layer had evidence of tunneling upon
microscopic investigative technique analysis. Bell and Elkerton consider this as a result of a
better environment for the microorganism to thrive in. In this depositional layer, there was
evidence of seaweed, which means there was light availability. Bell and Elkerton speculated the
27
Bell and Elkerton, 2008. p. 533.
28
Bell and Elkerton, 2008. p. 526.
29
Bell and Elkerton, 2008. p. 533.
30
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
microorganism responsible is either a Polychaete, Thraustochytrid, or cyanobacterium. 30 This
case example notes the importance of understanding the depositional environment, including
processes of sedimentation and micro-taphonomy, in uncovering skeletal remains.
Conclusion
There is great potential for utilizing bioarchaeological methods in an underwater
context with minor drawbacks. One potential drawback would be the commingling of bones
due to the unique underwater taphonomy that would potentially inhibit proper identification of
a human skeleton. Another drawback related to post-depositional processes would be the
possibility of postmortem breakage and alterations caused by water currents. There is also the
concern of osteological paradoxes, where paleopathological analysis of disease is only in those
who exhibit the pathology on bone. If an individual were to succumb quickly to a disease or
dietary deficiency, the evidence would not lend itself to interpretation on the skeletal remains.
Many pathologies that are attributed to long voyages at sea and are also generally non-specific
and the same identifying characteristics on bone could be related to a variety of pathologies.
Without context, it could also be unclear when that individual started to succumb to the
disease. 31 In some instances, there is a potential for its manifestation prior to living at sea. This
particular setback can be resolved if the bioarchaeologist contributes most attention to active
lesions on the bone rather than healed lesions.
Regardless of these drawbacks, there is still much to be learned about human remains
found at shipwreck sites. Through bioarchaeological analysis, it is possible to discern life at sea,
activity patterns, class differentiations, and the origins of the crew to name a few. The case
example of the Mary Rose exemplified this concept on a multifaceted analysis on submerged
human remains. The importance of underwater environments not having any adverse or harmful
effects on human bone is promising for the study of bioarchaeology as is the frequency of human
remains found at underwater sites. Overall, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses in regards to the
inclusion of bioarchaeology within the subfield of nautical archaeology.
30
Bell and Elkerton, 2008. p. 533.
31
Mays, 2008. p. 130.
31
STARC Journal
May 2016, Issue 1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Gregory Cook from the University of West Florida’s Department of
Anthropology for providing the seminar assignment that warranted the creation of this paper topic.
References
Arnaud G, Arnaud S, Ascenzi A, Bonucci E, Graziani G. 1980. On the Problem of Preservation of
Human Bone in Sea-Water. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater
Exploration 9:53-65.
Bell LS and Elkerton A. 2008. Unique Marine Taphonomy in Human Skeletal Material Recovered
from the Medieval Warship Mary Rose. International Journal of Osteoarchaeoly 18:523-535.
Brickley M and Ives R. 2008. The Bioarchaeology of Metabolic Bone Disease. Oxford, England.
Hershey, Peter. 2012. Regulating Davy Jones: The Existing and Developing Law Governing the
Interaction with and Potential Recovery of Human Remains at Underwater Cultural Heritage
Sites. Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation 27:363-400.
Mann, John Dixon. 1902. Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. Oxford, England.
Mays, Simon. 2008. Human Remains in Marine Archaeology. Environmental Archaeology
13:123-133.
Stirland, Ann. 2012. The Men of the Mary Rose. In: The Social History of English Seamen. Mark
Charles Fissel. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer.
Sorg MA, Dearbourne JK, Monahan EI, Ryan HF, Sweeney KG, David E. 1997. Forensic Taphonomy
in Marine Contexts. In: Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. Haglund
WD, Soeg MH. Boca Raton, FL.
Weiss, Elizabeth. 2009. Bioarchaeological Science: What We Have Learned from the Human
Skeletal Record. New York, NY.
32
STARC Interview
Bjørn Lovén (Ph.D., Classical Archaeology, University of London) is
an Associate Professor at the SAXO-Institute, University of
Copenhagen. As a specialist in archaeological sites that lie at the
interface between land and sea, he is the director of the Zea
Harbour Project and the co-director of the Lechaion Harbour
Project. He has agreed to answer some questions for us.
Archaeologist excavating the Late 6th early 5th century BC naval bases found in
the Piraeus.
Which are the archaeological theories that guide your research?
“One could call it ‘no-nonsense archaeology’. I focus on discovering
new important hard data – and on documenting, analyzing and
presenting these data to the highest scientific standards. In terms of
interpretation, I prefer to avoid taking archaeological data sets too
far, so let’s just say that I am not a great fan of diachronic studies
33
spanning several historical/archaeological periods or most
theoretical studies. Overall, I find theoretical archaeology to range
from being hypothetical to pure guesswork. It is important to stress
that one must be able to test a hypothesis before it becomes a
theory.”
There are some clear differences between archaeology on land and
under water, but what are some of the unique challenges of studying
submerged sites?
“The challenges are mostly in terms of logistics, economics, and
methodology. Conducting archaeology underwater takes much
more time and requires a surprising amount of equipment, hence
the higher costs. In the Piraeus, the pollution and debris in the
harbour were the greatest challenges. We had to use heavy-duty
equipment designed for contaminated water diving, which added
greatly to the logistical setup and to the costs.
As archaeologists, we face difficulties such as looting and vandalism.
How does this apply to maritime archaeology, and how effective are
the laws in protecting sites?
Fortunately, Greece has a very well-functioning archaeological law
protecting its all-important past. I have not experienced any looting
from the sites we have been excavating. The Piraeus has been in
continuous use for more than 2500 years and much have been lost
or built over. On the sites we were excavating in the Piraeus, the
greatest threats are anchors and anchor-chains. Marina Zeas A/S, to
its great credit, has removed boats from areas of great
archaeological importance.
34
Digital methods are often used in archaeological fieldwork today,
but what is the situation of digital archaeology in marine
environments? How do you see the future of these methods for
studying underwater sites?
“I feel that digital 3D documentation today is still in its early phase,
but we’ve been doing it since the beginning at Zea in 2001. This
includes documenting the antiquities in three dimensions, and
analyzing and presenting the data in a logical and useful way.
These days, in shallow water, we document structures with a totalstation as a high point density 3D digital wireframe plan. It may
come as a surprise to some that we still use hand-drawings of
important archaeological features. This is because no 3D scan or
high resolution photography can reproduce the analytical
interaction of hands and eye on, for example, a wooden plank or a
stone block. We still present plans and sections in the traditional 2D
publication format, as very few archaeologists are able to handle
data in various 3D formats.”
How do other disciplines contribute to maritime archaeology?
“Conservation is an important supporting discipline for underwater
archaeology, as almost all excavated structures require in situ
conservation and all artifacts, with the exception of gold, must be
treated by a conservator. Geophysicists are also essential for
defining and understanding the cultural and physical landscape
over time. Their important work helps create the framework for an
archaeological site. This is especially important for ancient harbour
sites as they are located at the very interface between land and
sea.”
35
Considering the current political and economic situation, have you
encountered any specific challenges within the projects you are
working on? How are they affecting your work?
“We have been very privileged to receive substantial funding from
both the Carlsberg Foundation and the Augustinus Foundation.
Fortunately, the current economic situation has not affected us
directly.”
What are the main considerations when preparing for fieldwork and
leading a team at Zea and Lechaion?
“We always strive to have the best team possible in the field, the
logistics in place, and a crystal clear excavation plan. But no
matter how hard you plan in underwater archaeology, something
will go wrong and you are at the mercy of the sea – and at
Lechaion especially the sea is merciless. The team have to be able
to adapt quickly and plan on the go.”
What do you consider to be the most important skills of a maritime
archaeologist? Do you have any advice for students who want to
be involved in archaeological projects of this amplitude?
“The willingness to work 50+ hours per week, to develop a strong
combination of practical and academic skills, and to be a good
team-player. Apart from your academic training, it is important
that you find your excavation specialization, be it drawing, digital
survey, excavation, photography etc. – and hone it to perfection.”
What do you feel has been your greatest contribution so far to the
field of archaeology?
Our greatest contribution has been the discovery of the earliest
evidence of the Athenian naval bases in the Piraeus from the late
6th to early 5th century BC. They were built by the first democracy
in the world, and they in all probability housed the warships that
defeated the Persians at Salamis in 480 BC.
36
Read more about the Zea Harbour Project and Lechaion Harbour
Project here:
www.facebook.com/Zea-Harbour-Project
www.carlsbergfondet.dk/da/Forskningsaktiviteter/Forskningsprojekter/
Andre-forskningsprojekter/Zeaharbourproject
www.facebook.com/LechaionHarbourProject/
http://humanities.ku.dk/news/2015/greek-danish-team-ofarchaeologists-investigates-one-of-the-most-important-harbour-townsof-the-ancient-mediterranean/
37