For the first two questions start by gathering all of your observations about things that change in the various datasets (the artifacts, the faunal remains, the pollen). Remember that the pollen data is kind of a proxy for telling us about changes in the paleoenvironment. Then look to see where there are temporal correlations when you compare those observations across the data sets. Can you then explain those correlations and make an argument for why they may be more of a causal relationship that explains how the society changed over time?

For question 3 you want to think about how the new sites and their levels might match with specific levels in the original site. Make sure you explain why you saw it fit that way -- what specific observations support your match.

Excavation Analysis In this lab, you produce a mini-site-report for an excavated archaeological site. The following is information on the artifactual, faunal, and paleoenvironmental material recovered from a hypothetical site, as well as a listing of all of the radiocarbon dates for the site. Table 1: Stratigraphic Analysis Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 scrpst6 st7 35 mano hoe 1 18 67 st10 netwt pt1 pt2 total 3 33 156 5 42 160 2 2 20 19 62 3 6 19 16 48 7 9 105 4 14 16 14 36 9 12 91 5 23 2 1 7 3 4 19 3 11 73 6 20 1 3 12 5 1 3 7 52 7 14 3 8 9 16 1 5 56 8 4 13 19 10 8 54 9 1 21 30 3 2 57 34 10 1 13 16 2 2 Notes to Table 1: Pp1, pp2, pp3, and pp4 are projectile points of various classifications. They may be associated with hunting or collecting various kinds of food. Hoes are probably implements for digging up the soil. Scrp are scrapers, i.e. multi-purpose tools. Sto, st7, and st10 are miscellaneous stone tools of different classes and unknown function. A mano is a grinding stone, often associated with the grinding of wild or cultivated seeds to make flour. Netwt is a net weight or net sinker, usually associated with fishing. Pt1 and pt2 are pottery types 1 and 2. fish birds oxen deer shell total Table 2: Faunal Remains Level rodent sheep 89 88 2 86 71 gazelle 5 3 3 8 196 6 2 9 174 3 57 69 8 9 143 4 23 49 3 11 4 97 7 2 5 3 33 2 11 16 57 6 2 19 1 2 7 6 6 43 7 5 2 1 9 13 3 33 8 8 3 3 9 26 49 9 7 11 4 12 31 19 84 10 1 5 3 5 14 6 34 Notes to Tables 1 and 2: In comparing the artifact assemblages from various levels, it usually works better to deal with percentages of the total number of tools for that level, rather than the plain artifact counts. In analysis, tables are OK, but they do not tell you as much as, for example, "battleship curve" diagrams (like the ones we have discussed previously). Note that other ways of analysis and illustration are also possible. Table 3: Palynological evidence (in percentages) Level Trees Shrub Grass Total % 100 1 9 21 70 74 2 11 15 100 3 15 14 71 100 4 20 13 67 100 5 8 39 53 100 6 70 15 15 100 7 77 18 5 100 8 81 14 5 100 9 84 13 3 100 10 80 15 5 100 Notes to Table 3: Note that large percentages of tree pollen usually indicatives that there was little human disturbance of the vegetation. Conversely, large amounts of grass pollen (where "grasses" include all sorts of weeds and non-woody plants) reflect vegetation disturbance, e.g. cutting down all the trees (possibly for cultivation) or forest fires. This is because grasses generally colonize disturbed areas quickly, followed by shrubs. Imagine the "colonization sequence" that would occur if a large suburban lawn upstate New York was not mowed for 25 years. Table 4: Radiocarbon Dates Level 1 2 1468 +/- 110 BP 3 4 5 3142 +/- 180 BP 16 7 3890 +/- 180 BP 8 9 10 6608 +/- 300 BP Questions: 1. (the main question) In the archaeological data given for this site, there is significant evidence for changes in the economy of the people living there. How did the economy of the people change through time? Please interpret this evidence in as detailed a way as possible, including as many different supporting points as you can for your argument. Note that you don't need to say why things changed, because you would need data from more than one site for that level of explanatory interpretation; rather, concentrate on describing the changes that occurred. 2. The environment surrounding the site, as reflected in the pollen preserved in the deposits, certainly seems to have changed through time. How might you account for this given the changes in the other archaeological characteristics at the site? 3. The tables below represent artifact frequencies from two other sites. By comparing these data with the main site's data, determine the age of these sites. Please justify your answers, and give both an estimate of the relative age of the sites (relative to the corresponding level or levels in the main site), and an estimate of the absolute age of the sites. Table 5: Site B Level pp1 pp2 1 4 15 pp3 pp4 scrn st6 st7 mano hoe st10 netwt 18 48 4 2 11 7 18 31 11 3 25 1 2 1 3 18 2 Table 6: Site C Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 st6 st7 mano hoe st10 scra 20 netwt 11 1 4 12 6 2 1 17 22 2 7 3 1 6 14 1 3 Excavation Analysis In this lab, you produce a mini-site-report for an excavated archaeological site. The following is information on the artifactual, faunal, and paleoenvironmental material recovered from a hypothetical site, as well as a listing of all of the radiocarbon dates for the site. Table 1: Stratigraphic Analysis Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 scrpst6 st7 35 mano hoe 1 18 67 st10 netwt pt1 pt2 total 3 33 156 5 42 160 2 2 20 19 62 3 6 19 16 48 7 9 105 4 14 16 14 36 9 12 91 5 23 2 1 7 3 4 19 3 11 73 6 20 1 3 12 5 1 3 7 52 7 14 3 8 9 16 1 5 56 8 4 13 19 10 8 54 9 1 21 30 3 2 57 34 10 1 13 16 2 2 Notes to Table 1: Pp1, pp2, pp3, and pp4 are projectile points of various classifications. They may be associated with hunting or collecting various kinds of food. Hoes are probably implements for digging up the soil. Scrp are scrapers, i.e. multi-purpose tools. Sto, st7, and st10 are miscellaneous stone tools of different classes and unknown function. A mano is a grinding stone, often associated with the grinding of wild or cultivated seeds to make flour. Netwt is a net weight or net sinker, usually associated with fishing. Pt1 and pt2 are pottery types 1 and 2. fish birds oxen deer shell total Table 2: Faunal Remains Level rodent sheep 89 88 2 86 71 gazelle 5 3 3 8 196 6 2 9 174 3 57 69 8 9 143 4 23 49 3 11 4 97 7 2 5 3 33 2 11 16 57 6 2 19 1 2 7 6 6 43 7 5 2 1 9 13 3 33 8 8 3 3 9 26 49 9 7 11 4 12 31 19 84 10 1 5 3 5 14 6 34 Notes to Tables 1 and 2: In comparing the artifact assemblages from various levels, it usually works better to deal with percentages of the total number of tools for that level, rather than the plain artifact counts. In analysis, tables are OK, but they do not tell you as much as, for example, "battleship curve" diagrams (like the ones we have discussed previously). Note that other ways of analysis and illustration are also possible. Table 3: Palynological evidence (in percentages) Level Trees Shrub Grass Total % 100 1 9 21 70 74 2 11 15 100 3 15 14 71 100 4 20 13 67 100 5 8 39 53 100 6 70 15 15 100 7 77 18 5 100 8 81 14 5 100 9 84 13 3 100 10 80 15 5 100 Notes to Table 3: Note that large percentages of tree pollen usually indicatives that there was little human disturbance of the vegetation. Conversely, large amounts of grass pollen (where "grasses" include all sorts of weeds and non-woody plants) reflect vegetation disturbance, e.g. cutting down all the trees (possibly for cultivation) or forest fires. This is because grasses generally colonize disturbed areas quickly, followed by shrubs. Imagine the "colonization sequence" that would occur if a large suburban lawn upstate New York was not mowed for 25 years. Table 4: Radiocarbon Dates Level 1 2 1468 +/- 110 BP 3 4 5 3142 +/- 180 BP 16 7 3890 +/- 180 BP 8 9 10 6608 +/- 300 BP Questions: 1. (the main question) In the archaeological data given for this site, there is significant evidence for changes in the economy of the people living there. How did the economy of the people change through time? Please interpret this evidence in as detailed a way as possible, including as many different supporting points as you can for your argument. Note that you don't need to say why things changed, because you would need data from more than one site for that level of explanatory interpretation; rather, concentrate on describing the changes that occurred. 2. The environment surrounding the site, as reflected in the pollen preserved in the deposits, certainly seems to have changed through time. How might you account for this given the changes in the other archaeological characteristics at the site? 3. The tables below represent artifact frequencies from two other sites. By comparing these data with the main site's data, determine the age of these sites. Please justify your answers, and give both an estimate of the relative age of the sites (relative to the corresponding level or levels in the main site), and an estimate of the absolute age of the sites. Table 5: Site B Level pp1 pp2 1 4 15 pp3 pp4 scrn st6 st7 mano hoe st10 netwt 18 48 4 2 11 7 18 31 11 3 25 1 2 1 3 18 2 Table 6: Site C Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 st6 st7 mano hoe st10 scra 20 netwt 11 1 4 12 6 2 1 17 22 2 7 3 1 6 14 1 3