McGill Archaeological Field Methods Course

It's not just all about digging

2011-12-03T17:52:00.000-08:00

The last class of the semester was rather interesting and different. Not just because it was the last class of the term, but also because Colin was away (and so was our motivation to complete the readings – oops).

However, this didn’t prevent us from having a great discussion on the use of different types of geophysical surveys in archaeology. Indeed, it turned out that Chris (who was replacing Collin) was using one of these “geoarchaeological technologies” in his research and so was able to tell us a great deal about it!

But first of all, what are these geophysical surveys and what are they used for? In our discussion, we focused more specifically on two of them : the GPR (Ground Penetrator Radar) and the GIS (Geographic Information System). Basically, the GPR works by shooting radar pulses into the ground and recording the elapsed time starting from the moment when they are sent. Hence, the GPR has the unique ability to obtain data from known depths and produce images of specific layers or horizons.(Conyers 3) On the other hand, the GIS is a tool that enables excavators to get a dynamic viewing of morphological activity by integrating, storing, editing, analyzing, sharing, and displaying geographically referenced information. (Ghilardi 2)

In view of this, it is not surprising that technologies such as GPR and GIS were primarily brought into the archaeological field as exploratory tools, enabling archaeologists to easily find sites and digging spots. However, nowadays, these technologies have progressed and aren’t (and shouldn’t) only being used as “upgraded test pits”. Indeed, things like social change, technological innovations and ecological adaptations can potentially be studied from the data collected from them (Conyer 9)

We also discussed other possible perks of these technologies. An important element that was raised was concerning ethics, a subject that we touched upon a few weeks ago. To illustrate the usefulness of the GPR and the GIS on ethical grounds, Chris brought up different examples from his own research site in Jordan. With vast temples at the ground level, how can you investigate stratigraphic layers that happen to be underneth without taking these temples down? We found that, by mapping in horizontal slices without damage, the GPR and the GIS could potentially resolve this question by opening important heritage preservation options. (Conyers 1).

However, far from being limited to resolve ethics problem or simply produce “pretty maps”, the GPR and the GIS can help the archaeologist in their pursue of discovering the past. Indeed, by gathering a lot of information together and managing important amount of data widely dispatched in space and time, these geoarchaeological technologies enable the archaeologists to see things they wouldn’t have been able to see in the first place. Thanks to this, archaeologists can then reinterpret their findings and raise new questions, enabling them to produce models about past behaviour, and test them.

Finally, we can say that archaeology is not just about digging; it is also about getting a large picture of the environment in which people lived. In this sense, digging 1 x 1 meter units can’t always give us this a picture ; this is where geophysical surveys come into play.

This blog post concludes the 2011 archaeological field studies class! If any future student read this, good luck on excavating the rest of Magic’s remains, and, possibly, finding new animals!

Works cited :

Conyers, L.B., 2010. Ground-penetrating radar for anthropological research. Antiquity 84, 175- 184. http://mysite.du.edu/~lconyer/antiquity_article_larry.pdf

Ghilardi, M., Desruelles, S., 2009. Geoarchaeology: where human, social and earth sciences meet with technology. S.A.P.I.EN.S 2009 (2.2). http://sapiens.revues.org/index422.html

Dibbling in Technology

2011-11-19T19:17:00.000-08:00

Hello all, I apologize for the delay in getting this post up. My “lap-top” computer (Dibble 433) succumbed to the rigours of the field last week (roommate sat on it).

Our discussions the week before last focused on the uses and limitations of technology within the field. As time goes on and technological advances continue their endless march towards the singularity/Wall-E, archaeologists finds itself in a bit of a quandary. As Dibble so astutely points out, “'lap-top' computers” are getting smaller every day (433), and the traditional ways of recording data in notebooks and performing analysis by hand are quickly becoming dated. New technologies for recording data more precisely and accurately, as well as the new types of data that emerge as a result of a more expansive toolkit, radically alter the ways in which archaeologists conceive of their work. Though they bring solutions to many existing problems, they also carry, in a manner somewhat akin to the Biblical Plagues, a host of new ones.

We began with a discussion of Zubrow, who addresses some of the issues associated with the growing adoption of technology in “Digital Archaeology.” One of the first points he brought up was whether digital developments were primarily methodological advances, or whether their adoption resulted in the creation of a new theoretical toolkit. While its true that more precise ways of recording data are essentially methodological, its also true that new theories could become necessary in order to address the new types of data being generated.

We also discussed another point that Zubrow made, regarding the greater ubiquity of data generated from technological sources. The open-source effect, in which the data was available to a greater range of people, among a wider array of disciplines, has important consequences. This brought up a discussion of Tdar, a site which hosts archaeological data from a variety of sources, most of which were not peer reviewed, in order to promote greater access to research. One important observation that resulted from an agglomeration of data such as this is the need for a universal standard by which to group and arrange data. A standard format promotes greater accessibility. However, one perceived danger of such a standard is that hinders theoretical advances by constraining possible new avenues for interpreting data.

Our next discussion concerned the work of Andrew Bevan and James Conolly on the island of Kythera, Greece. This study remains the benchmark for the use of GIS and digital data collection, as they covered a ridiculously large amount of the Island's area with an equally ridiculously large array of measurements in order to gain data for the questions they were asking. One of the questions they asked was whether surface visibility affects the amount of artifacts recovered from a site, a question that reminded me of our own efforts to survey the terrain at the graveyard in order to gain a sense of what may or may not be buried beneath the surface. In our case, surface visibility was extremely low, making the placement of our test pits essentially a shot in the dark. Fortunately we were able to rely on previous knowledge of finds in the region in order to better situate our pits, but visibility definitely affected our fieldwork. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, Bevan and Conolly found no significant correlation between surface visibility and artifact finds. Surprising in the sense that archaeologists have long relied on the degree of surface visibility as a means of estimating the possible number of finds in an area. Yet the research showed that there was no significant variation between the artifacts found in areas with low visibility vs high visibility, due to the fact that visibility is but one of several factors determining the likelihood of an artifact being recovered. I say not so surprisingly in the sense that its logical that the amount of visibility doesn't affect that actual placement of artifacts, a distinction that archaeologists need to keep in mind. In our case, based on past experience and our background knowledge, we were able to work in regions where our chances of success were high. Yet we didn't assume that the number of artifacts in the regions we surveyed were low just because we couldn't see them.

The work of Bevan and Conolly underlines the need to take into account not only the actual process of data collection, but also the time needed to interpret and analyze it when doing a project. Their immensely technological approach also highlights the stark reality of the actual prevalence of digital archaeology within the field, which according to Colin hovers around 30%. This is due not only to adverse environmental conditions in field- rain and technology, or dirt and technology don't often cohabit peacefully, but also archaeologists desperately clinging to the tried and true (as well as cheaper) methods of manual data entry. This was pretty apparent when at the first few drops of rain in the field we had to run to cover up the total station with a tarp. I can't see the station being used very much in rainier conditions.

Our discussion helped us gain a better understanding of both the solutions and the problems that the introduction of technology brings. Discussions in a seminar may not seem as fun as digging, possibly because it isn't, but it gives us valuable perspectives into the reasons behind why we do what we do, and how we can do what we do better. Following the seminar we proceeded to retrieve our own data on the field from the total station. It turned out to be surprisingly close (Colin almost fainted) to the real thing. Yeah! No real anomalies seemed to exist regarding the points on the map. All that remained to do was to match the tags on our recovered and newly cleaned bones to the points on the map, in order to fuse the data and create a dataset for our work this year. I feel that our project thus errs on the side of success. We found an elephant, for the love of god.

Works Cited:

Bevan, A., Conolly, J., 2002. GIS, Archaeological Survey, and Landscape Archaeology on the Island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29, 123-138.

Dibble, H.L. & S.P. McPherron, 1988. On The Computerization of Archaeological Projects. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, 431–440.

Zubrow, E.B., 2006. Digital Archaeology: a historical context. In: Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. London, Routledge, pp. 10-31.

Ignorance is not Bliss

2011-11-19T09:09:00.001-08:00

When most people think of archaeology, they think about the exciting stuff; digging in an exotic place, discovering amazing artifacts, and bringing them back as trophies of a job well done. But rarely do people stop to think about the correct way to treat artifacts. Should we, as archaeologists, take as much as we can find and leave nothing behind for those that come in the future? Who really owns the artifacts that are found? And who has the right to decide where they should be put for safe keeping? These are some of the issues of ethical archaeology.

First of all, upon making a startling discovery or even just an interesting find, it is tempting to excavate to the fullest extent and recover as many artifacts as possible. This is problematic however, since we must consider that even over a decade, technology has improved at an alarming rate. This means that technology will most likely continue to improve over the next decade and so on. Therefore, it seems only logical that archaeologists should leave some of the landscape unexcavated so that those who come later will be able to use their new found technologies to perhaps get more detailed and accurate information. As was suggested in the “Can You Dig it?” article by the Economist, a viable plan is to “move away from the complete excavation of sites towards a more selective, sampling approach”. This would be a responsible way for archaeologists to behave. We cannot be too arrogant as to ignore the fact that those who come after us might actually be more successful or efficient in their work.

It seems that pride is a recurring theme in many of the ethical issues of archaeology. For instance, it seems as if archaeologists have come to see themselves as seekers of the truth and unfortunately, the high importance they place on that “truth” tends to blur the boundaries on what is ethical and what is not, especially on the issue of ownership of artifacts. As was stated in the Economist article, “the ownership of artefacts and responsibility to future generations, all stem in part from archaeology's new-found scientific authority” (Can You Dig it?, The Economist). This sense of authority sometimes causes archaeologists to neglect certain cultural and moral values that might be held by the community or culture that is associated with the artifacts that are found. The most favourable solution would be for archaeologists to work along with community members in order to come to an agreement that suits the desires of both parties. Though this would undoubtedly be complicated, it is imperative that archaeologists establish good relationships with the people involved. Arguably, one of the ultimate goals of archaeology is to enhance knowledge of human culture, therefore we have to start thinking more about the “human” part of it. The Society for American Archaeology agrees with this, however its principles of stewardship have certain flaws that would be improved (Groarke and Warrick, 2006). In addition to archaeologists seeing themselves as having a greater authority than most, there seems to be a Western way of thinking and doing that presents itself in some situations. Bergman and Doershuk state that in 1994, ninety percent of practicing archaeologists in the United States were of European descent (2003), which is startling and sort of unsettling when you think of the fact that these are the people making choices on behalf of the descendants of multiple ethnicities and that bias is almost inevitable. Archaeologists have to take into consideration that their interpretations will undoubtedly differ greatly from those of others and they cannot always assume that they know better just because they have science behind them.

Moving into the future, archaeologists can no longer ignore the wishes of members of the cultures that stake claims to artifacts, nor can they ignore the fact that there could be more successful archaeologists in the future. Therefore, they must find ways to interact efficiently with the other parties involved in their work and they must recognize that preserving parts of sites will prove more effective in the long term scheme of things. In short, it is apparent that when it comes to ethical archaeology, ignorance is not bliss.

References

Bergman, C., Doershuk, J. (2003). Cultural Resource Management and the Business of Archaeology in Ethical Issues in Archaeology (85-97). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Ethics and Archaeology: Can You Dig it? In The Economist. (2002).

Groarke, L., Warrick, G. (2006). Stewardship gone astray? Ethics and the SAA in The Ethics of Archaeology (163-177). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bye Magic!

2011-11-03T19:02:00.000-07:00

When we got to the site for our final day in the field, our primary concern was identifying how to use our time to remove the most of Magic’s remains as possible. Group A had extended a trench between our original pit and the 2007 Magic pit and already removed a humerus from that trench. We decided to dig for the second humerus in that trench and to expand a small section of our original pit to the east to remove a scapula that was extending about halfway into the original pit. These bones were out two primary goals, as well as any vertebrae and ribs which we could remove from the original pit without further expanding it.

The humerus was covered by layers of thick black plastic which needed to be cut out bit by bit with a pocket knife. This was slow going and kept two people busy for the entire field day, a lesson in how difficult it can be to budget time in the field when unforeseen problems arise. We eventually removed the humerus! The scapula and several vertebrae were also removed. We also found a femur from a much smaller animal near the proximal end of the humerus but we did not find any other bones which looked as though they belonged to the same animal.

Mid-way through the day we had a quick tutorial is soil coring. We practiced using soil coring equipment and discussed the possible uses for soil coring at our site. As we already know the stratigraphy within the trench dug to bury Magic, by looking for where this stratigraphy ends we could identify the extent of Magic’s grave more quickly than we could digging test pits. We attempted to use this method to determine how far east Magic’s grave extends. However the stoniness of the soil at Parc Safari made it difficult to obtain soil samples containing the diagnostic layer of organic, pulpy sawdust which we found during excavation. Still, soil coring remains an extremely useful method of defining the edges of a site or of specific features. This is especially true at sites where features are very deeply buried, where mechanical coring equipment can be used which test pits are not feasible (Canti, 1998).

Soil coring could be useful in future years to determine the extent of Magic’s grave now that we know what to look for in the stratigraphy. Soil coring can be used to locate graves and human activity without knowledge of the stratigraphy through analysis of soil phosphorus levels (Holliday, 2006). Increased phosphorus would be left in the soil from decomposing animal matter, however as Magic is buried on farmland high levels of phosphorus could also indicate that fertilizer has been used on the soil in the past (Holliday, 2006). Our site also has extremely wet soil, which would generally cause soils to retain phosphorus however the effects of soil moisture on soil phosphorus levels has not been well studied (Holliday, 2006).

The excavation of the rest of Magic will unfortunately have to wait for another year. With the knowledge of Magic’s exact location and judging by the amount of dirt we managed to move, maybe by this time next year Magic’s remains will be reunited!

Sources
Canti, M. G., & Meddens, F. M. (1998). Mechanical Coring as an Aid to Archaeological Projects. Journal of Field Archaeology, 25(1), 97-105.
Holliday, V. T., & Gartner, W. G. (2007). Methods of soil P analysis in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(2), 301-333.

Errey Day I'm Shov-vellin!!!!!

2011-10-27T11:23:00.000-07:00

The day started off pretty fantastically, I came up with a brilliant pun (seen above) based off of LMFAO’s single “Party Rockers Theme” and was busy shuffling around with spade in hand. I was very excited that day because it was Octoberfest and I was looking forward to going to the bar smelling like rancid pachyderm. During the car ride to the site (I was riding shot gun !!) we discussed our goals for that day as well as the physics of Aaron Carter taking on Shaquille O’Neil in a one on one basket ball match.

The main goals of our excavation that day were to A) Remove the skull from the pit and B) to expand the pit. By removing the skull we will give ourselves more room in the pit and access to other areas of the pit which may have been blocked by the skull. By taking the skull out it will give time for the skull to dry out a little bit before we bring it to the lab and potentially turn Peterson Hall basement into a gas pit. The reason we are so eager to expand the pit is to access bones that are jutting out of the walls and the skulls removal would mean more room (this is difficult since the bones are so large). Additionally our time is running short before the soil starts to freeze up so we need to try to expose as much as possible.

On arrival to the site we realized just how much it rained that week. The elephant head was almost completely submerged, I considered for a long time to go for a snorkel but my better judgment went against it. Once bailed, we then faced the problem of moving the elephant skull. The main difficulty of moving the skull lay in its awkward shape and fragile sections. I will spare the details but surprisingly enough we got it out without a hitch. As soon as we removed the pit we were visited by Ashley and Thomaz who came to “help”…great timing guys, really…good job.

With the skull out of the way we mapped out the ribs so that they can be removed and permit us to get started on uncovering the scapula. The ribs were cut in half which indicates a possible autopsy done on Magic. We were then faced with the dilemma of where to expand our pit. Since we don’t have the time to excavate the entire elephant we had to determine which expansion would yield the most bones. After hours of heavy archaeological discussion we determined to expand North and East. Expanding northwards will permit us to remove the humerus while simultaneously connecting our pit with the pit dug in 2007. The logic in this expansion was that it would be less work in connecting the two pits so it would permit us to expand in two directions. We picked the east side over the west because of the presence of our massive back dirt pile which would be directly over the west scapula.

Before expanding north wards we had to bail out the old pit which hasn’t been touched since 2007. Because of its age the pit was filled with sediment. We decided to continue our current pit and the northern expansion so we split into three groups. One group mapped out bones and worked on our first pit, the second group worked on taking down the barrier between our pit and the old pit and uncovering the humerus while group three worked on re-excavating the older pit since it was filled with sediment.

We managed to remove the humerus and create a passage connecting our pit with the older pit. We found a large amount of plastic garbage bags which may indicate the presence of a mass grave. A fractured pelvis bone was uncovered however we are unsure if it belongs to Magic or not. We managed to reach Magic’s backside in the older pit, which was to our pleasure very rich in decomposing fatty tissue.

Even though we did not use remote sensing, coring or chemical sampling of soil in our dig, much can be said about it and its relation to our work. The three methods would have had great potential in the beginning of our dig since they are focused on possible site detection. However as we progress in our excavation the uses for these methods are apparent. Core sampling or auguring is used to give a quick idea of the stratigraphic content of the soil without having to dig a test pit (Stein 1986). Coring gives an idea of the soil composition of a possible archaeological site. It indicates the depth of the cultural layer as well as giving a stratigraphy of the soil content. Even though they are less time consuming than test pits or shovel tests they do require a greater degree of analysis in determining what a cultural layer is (Roskams 2001). The reason that I bring coring up is that we found a layer above the scapula which is composed of fatty tissue and animal flesh. This layer is made up of dirt and sod soaked in fatty tissue and is what we would be looking for if we conducted a core sample of the area.

Chemical sampling uses soil samples to show levels of phosphate is (Roskams 2001). Levels of phosphate will be present if the soil was disturbed by fire or the presence of a human or animal burial. This method is used in the initial phases of the excavation to get an idea of what may be available before digging of test pits is (Roskams 2001). Often soil samples are obtained by coring. However we did have records of methane output obtained by the Geo-department who’s van we olfactorily demolished (luv you guys xoxox ) . Therefore we are familiar with the use of chemical sampling but on a different scale, instead of using soil we use gas output.

Remote sensing can take many forms. It can include electromagnetic scanning, aerial pictures or ground-penetrating radar, to name a few. Essentially the goal in using these methods is similar to those of coring and chemical sampling, which can give an understanding of what is under the soil before digging (Kvamme 2005). Use of ground penetrating radar gives archaeologists the potential to direct their excavation according to what the scan finds (Kvamme 2005). Remote sensing can give an idea of artifact distribution before the dig commences so less time is wasted in digging test pits which potentially contain nothing of relevance. Remote sensing would have benefited our excavation in determining the direction for us to expand our pit. As mentioned before we decided to expand eastwards. However after further excavation we found the second humerus was positioned underneath the scapula heading westwards, which was directly under the back dirt pile. Remote sensing would have given an idea of where to dig to uncover the most bones as well as where to position our back dirt pile.

P.S do not trust McClean with a coffee, he has a tendency to THROW THEM AGAINST WOMEN’S WASHROOM DOORS

P.S.S ANOTHER thing about Sting, do you know that Sting’s song “Walking on the moon” was originally “walking in the room” because he wrote the song while he was pacing in a room. HA HA!

Kvamme, K. 2005. Terrestrial Remote Sensing in Archaeology. In: Maschner, H.D.G.,
Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Press, pp. 423-77.

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stein, J.K., 1986. Coring Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51, 505-527.

Up Close and Personal with Magic

2011-10-23T10:43:00.000-07:00

When we arrived at the site on week seven, we were faced with a huge hole filled with water and what looked like chunks of elephant brain. We were all excited to see how much Group A, or Team Danger, had exposed and if we were going to be able to get Magic’s skull out that week. Team Danger had done a good job uncovering most of the skull, a few vertebrae and the beginning of what looks like a scapula.

After bailing the water out, we all got down to digging to try to reach the bottom of the elephant skull and uncover more of the rest of the elephant skeleton. After a few hours of digging flat on our stomach, with most of our faces bright red from keeping our heads upside down into the pit, we realized our arms weren’t long enough anymore and we had to get into the pit to get work done. So those who could fit squeezed in next to the skull and continued digging.

At this time, it had started raining, some of us (I’m thinking of Ashley here, who, for some reason, always seems to have it worse than all of us - remember field walking through the meters tall reeds?) were knee deep in a mix of mud, clay and rotting elephant flesh and had smelled so much of the methane coming from the decaying elephant that we couldn’t distinguish one reeking odor from the rest. Don’t get me wrong; we would not have traded it for anything else! We quickly realized, however, that to be able to work on the rest of the skeleton, we either had to get the skull out or expand the area excavation for logistical reasons and practical excavation (Glassow, 2005). The strategy of exposure of a burial, according to Glassow, is similar to the exposure of any object or cluster but differs in the way that the “knowledge of the human skeleton often guides” where we will expand next. In this case, knowledge of the elephant skeleton shows that expansion should continue to the North and the East of the elephant skull.

Because of lack of time, we continued digging down into the pit and started recording data with the total station. The total station “allows the three-dimensional position of an object to be recorded in one quick operation” (Glassow 2005). Each exposed vertebrae, the lower mandible, and the skull were recorded into the total station. This sort of area does not require the use of a grid because, according to Glassow, when the objects of interest are “relatively large and easy to discern during excavation” their point providence can be recorded once they are exposed. I think it is safe to say that elephant bones fit in the ‘relatively large’ category.

The last half hour of our afternoon was spent trying to get pieces of the skeleton out of the pit to bring back to the lab. The skull was too heavy and big to get out but Thomas and Elise were able, after carefully rotating it every way possible, to get the lower mandible out. Next step? The vertebras. This required the skull to be lifted lightly in order to dislodge them. Not an easy task considering the size and weight of it but a successful one.

Lastly, I just wanted to include a picture of what we uncovered of Magic in relation to the size of an average African elephant (the dimensions are not accurate). Knowing that Magic died at 30 years old, and that African male elephants in captivity mature faster than others…let’s hope it stays warm until December!

Glassow, M.A. 2005. Excavation. In: Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 133-75.

" Magic (Majeska, Majestica), an African Bush elephant at Hemmingford Parc Safari ." Elephants Encyclopedia - facts and information about elephants since 1995. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.

"African Elephant Loxodonta africana - Appearance/Morphology: Measurement and Weight (Literature Reports)." Wildpro Disclaimer. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2011..

Digging down through the layers: Stratigraphy at Parc Safari

2011-10-15T11:42:00.000-07:00

Week Three for Team Danger was pretty exciting. After locating Magic's remains in a test pit during our second excavation, we arrived at the field eager to see exactly what Group B had been able to uncover. We were not disappointed.

After several minutes of bailing foul smelling water out of the elephant pit, we went to work on the task of freeing the skull from the ground. Our first goal of the day was to locate the midpoint of the cranium. After about an hour without success, we started being concerned if we would be able to remove the skull the next week if we hadn't even hit the half way mark yet! Colin was eventually able to expose it, but time was running out.

While the midpoint debacle was unfolding, other team members were hard at work expanding the pit and getting as much dirt out of there as possible. Anna and Manu expanded the pit by approximately 50cm so we could uncover the mandible and tusks. Success! As the day was coming to an end, we knew we were not even close to getting the skull ready to be removed, but we had made a considerable amount of progress. By 4:15, most of the team hit a wall of lethargy. Snack time had been scarified because of excitement, and because of time constraints. If there is one lesson to be learned, it is to never skip snack time.

As we get deeper into the excavation (pun intended,) we're starting to learn more about other methodological aspects of archaeology. For one, we're looking more closely at stratigraphy. In methodology classes, the common example of stratigraphy is a cross-section of a million years of dirt. The illistrations always show stone tools, ritual artifacts, and several storage pits intruding very clearly into another strata. Our site has none of these exciting features, but stratigraphy can come in very handy. For example, a thick, heavy clay layer that appears to be uninterupted means that we will not find any graves below it. The largest and most common strata we have found is a mixed, dark soil. This can mean that the area has been disturbed from the process of opening and closing graves. The third layer is organic trash that was buried by the zoo. There appear to have been large and small deposits of this material, which are an instant indication that there has been human activity. However, we have learned that organic trash is not an automatic indication of a grave.

Layers are more than just an indication of activity, they can tell you a lot about an area - if you're willing to listen. Roskams talks about the kinds of relationships that strata can have. For one, they can relate to their immediate neighbor and indicate changes that happened when one layer ends and the next one starts. Secondly, what he calls the "true stratigraphic relationship," is the chronological order(Roskams, 155).This can show the history of what has occurred and more importantly in what order. The final kind of relationship, is how layers correlate. A layer my have been interrupted or two layers may almost be the exact same, but are not physically connected. Looking at these connections can be informative and crucial to understanding a site. However, as Roskams notes, it can be problematic to make correlations without 100% proof they are connected.

In our excavation, we're making connections between patches of organic waste or black soil we find in a persue of graves. The organic waste may have been depositied at different times, but it has the same meaning to us whenever we find it; people dug a hole and deposited it, which mean they may have buried an animal too. Moreover, the clay layer indicates to us that we can probably stop digging there. At the back of Magic's head, a uniform clay area is becoming more exposed on the side wall. Colin has noted this could indicated the extremity of grave, but it could also just be a large clay deposit marbled into the other kinds of soil.

Furthermore, when considering stratigraphy, we need to include or exclude certain factors. In human archaeology, there is sometimes an exclusion of any non-human finds (Roskams, 180). In our case, we are doing the opposite. Mountain Dew cans, two-by-fours, and pottery shards are tossed aside to excavate the fauna!

Lastly, Roskams, highlights the importance of the "grave complex". Why was the individual buried that why and why? As we continue the excavation, we will learn more about the orientation of Magic's body and other factors, but for now we do know that h/she was in a mass grave because we have found a small scapula near the skull. Why is it there? The plot thickens, and only more excavation will tell us the answers!

There's Magic in the air!

2011-10-06T15:14:00.000-07:00

When we started out from McGill in the field van last Friday we had no idea what we were in store for that day. We had heard the news that Group A (AKA: Team Danger) had discovered what was most likely a bone belonging to Magic at the bottom of one of their test pits and we were excited to start uncovering it. While we sat in the van and listened to music and played a few friendly games of Werewolves to pass the time we wondered what we might find that day; after our last trip during which we found a grand total of two little vertebrae I'm sure we all would have been happy with anything. We found more than just anything.

When we first arrived we weren't sure what to expect at the location, it had rained the previous night and there were some ominous looking clouds in the distance on our drive over. The ground was wet and muddy but not nearly as bad as our worst fears and the sun even came out and was shining brightly when we first arrived. Better yet, while there were mosquitoes around, their numbers were nowhere near the biblical level that Group A had promised they would be.

We started out by cording off a rectangular area encompassing Group A's test pit that had hit bone and digging out the first layer of the trench with shovels. The ground was extremely muddy and not very far down the pit began to fill with water. Eventually Thomas uncovered something that looked like bone and Colin told us all to switch to using trowels. This is the point where we discovered why field clothes STAY field clothes. We painstakingly scraped away the mud and clay while the pit slowly filled with water (Colin and Elise began to bail out the water constantly at this point). Slowly but surely more and more bone was uncovered. What appeared to be a second piece of bone near the first also appeared. As we slowly dug away the dirt we realized it wasn't a second bone, it was connected to the first. At this point we began to realize how big the find was, we kept uncovering it but there was just more and more bone.

Taking a break we all stood back and looked at the find and tried to figure out just what it was. Joking suggestions ranging from a T-Rex to Bigfoot to a Dragon were made but we all knew that the bone had to belong to an elephant. The question was, which bone was it? "It's a pelvis" was the first suggestion, to which there were murmurs of agreement, until Colin said something which caused everyone's ears to perk up in excitement. "I think it's the skull." From then on we all worked hurriedly, bailing and digging as carefully and quickly as we could. At the end of the day we had uncovered what must be a good portion of the bone but much of it still laid buried. Colin took a picture (which I would post here except I'm having trouble accessing his album) of the bone in the pit and we decided to pack it up and head home. The ominous clouds had returned and the mosquitoes had finally caught our scent and were beginning to swarm. Group B left the site exhausted, muddy, missing about a litre of blood combined and completely satisfied (maybe a little more so after a coffee from the rest stop and a few friendly games of Werewolves during the ride home).

Group A, you have some awesome digging ahead of you!

Here are some pictures of elephant skulls from google image search to help you visualize what you're looking at when you're there (I can guarantee after seeing these photos that it is indeed the skull that we found).

Elephant Skull

(apparently this guy's name is Tony, I just included it to demonstrate the size that these things can be!)

P.S. Ashley is always the werewolf.

Mosquito galore

2011-09-29T19:47:00.000-07:00

The trip started interestingly enough with random talks and comments on pop culture in the van such as Will Smith and his songs and the fact that Sting hates his song ‘We’ll be together’ because it was originally written for a Japanese beer commercial. Because it was group A’s second trip, we confidently assumed it would follow the last experience with a few differences such as digging new test pits. However, upon arriving, we learned what all archaeologists have; to assume that the land would not have changed in 2 weeks is to make an ass out of you. Two weeks, with a few rainy days here and there, was enough time for the road to become spread with grass, the earth to become more swamp like and for the birth of a host of mosquitoes, to whom we were the ideal banquet. I say this because not only were we there for at least three hours, but we all took turns holding the prism for the Total Station which as you all know, means that we cannot move until the Total Station is centered on the prism. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Before leaving McGill, MacLean presented Colin with a map of our site displaying various amounts of methane all over the area. Curiosity got to us and we decided, with Colin’s approval of course, to dig test pits around the upper North-West area (behind a row of trees) because it seemed like a large animal (or so it seemed according to the large amount of methane exposure on the map) was buried there. After digging 6 test pits we unfortunately found nothing though it was well worth the effort seeing as we got to view Colin, in his archaeology outfit, take the machete to the trees that were obtruding the Total Station’s view of the prism. We realised at one point that the trees were just too dense and seeing as we couldn’t chop down trees, we did what any archaeologist do in that situation, we use the GPS.

After that little experiment, which showed us how unpredictable test pits and finding objects can be, Colin decided that it was time we found the limits of Magic’s range and excitedly, we started to dig 4 test pits. One to the right (North) of Magic’s old test pit from 2007, one just to its lower left corner and two to Magic’s left (South). Anna and I worked on the test pit situated on the right which eventually became Trench # 3. About 10 cm deep we found a small tibia and a fibula. Seeing as it was close to the surface, the bones probably do not belong to a set but rather, were deposited there when the earth was turned by the framer’s tractor. Other than that, we were unable to get to the bottom swap layer because of all the huge (and I do mean huge) rocks in our way. Jason’s and MacLean’s test pit as well as Alice’s and Manu’s went much smoother and they both reached the water/swamp level. After a few jokes on the interesting smells coming from them, it was Alison’s pit from which the jack pot was found. They discovered what we think may have been an epiphysis but it was small and fractured so we weren’t sure. They also found a huge bone with the same kind of formations. Next to it sticking out of the side wall in the pit, was a ball-and-socket joint. Jason’s test pit at first revealed nothing but, upon checking the earth dump, they found a couple of bones: two un-fused epiphysis from an animal smaller than that an elephant. Both pits provided us with bones that were smaller than an adult elephant but bigger than any other animal at the park. Could it be Magic wasn’t an adult? Or was another animal placed at this exact spot and got mixed up with Magic’s bones? All this means, is that we need to dig deeper. Overall, we learned how to use the Total Station properly with the prism, that Magic’s bones continue more towards the south, that a mask and water proof gloves might be for the best next time, and that bring a whole bottle of off would be a great idea.

Ps: Group B, remind Colin that you’ll need smaller buckets to be able to get in the pits and bail out swamp water. We improvised and cut a plastic water bottle in half.

A hole lot of NOTHING

2011-09-21T19:19:00.001-07:00

Friday, at noon, a small group of students gathered in the Basement of Peterson Hall, ready for an afternoon of driving, traipsing through forests of high grass, and digging through mud, all in pursuit of an elusive goal. We were traveling to Parc Safari, to hack our way through the grass, dig our way through endless mud and clay, all to find the skeletons of dead animals. Each of us likely had our own personal goals in mind, be it emulating Indiana Jones, or just basking in the spirit of scientific discovery, But mine, I knew, was the most noble! I was going to find a LION! (Of course, I have no idea whether a Lion had actually been buried there.)

My contacts from Group A had dropped a few hints as to what we were to expect, and most specifically bragged about the fact that, while we were going to have to use a sketchy Geo Van, they had lucked out and got to drive to the site in a swanky, new, rented minivan. And, so, I was shocked, when we walked out of Peterson hall clutching various necessary implements (Namely, shovels, Boxes, and, most interesting, a machete, clutched possessively by Tom) to find a huge Black SUV, which, while not the most ecological, would not have been out of place in a Spy movie, in the possession of the Omnipresent Government Agency.

Pulling onto Peel, we headed through the traffic of Downtown Montreal, Tom’s Selection of music blasting through the car. The Car ride itself was fairly quiet, going by quickly as we headed to the American border. Colin pulled off the highway at the last exit before the border, through a veritable labyrinth of sketchier and sketchier roads in rural Quebec, before finally parking the car on a dirt (or, rather, MUD) road between a hill covered in vines, and a field densely packed with tall grasses.

After a quick tour of the site (punctuated every so often with such phrases as “That’s the Elephant pit. Don’t fall into it.”) We got to work. Though the terrain of the Graveyard (the tall grasses) made it fairly difficult, we did a field survey, covering the area between the Historical remains of a farmhouse and the Test pits dug last week by group A. Though the Grass was difficult to march through, we called upon our inner fortitude and pushed forwards, avoiding pits. As White and King state, “During field survey there is a constant need for measuring space, especially calculating distance. Much of this is associated with basic logistics like establishing and maintaining transect width (pg 101.)” Unfortunately for Ashley, this resulted in the unfortunate reality that she was forced to hack her way through the Meters tall reeds that were growing on the foundations of the farm house.

During our survey, we found a largish mound, just the west of Magic’s pit, and, Colin, full of the spirit of discovery and joy, decided that we were to dig our test pits on this mound, because he was curious, and “A big mound next to a pit where we know a part of the elephant was found is good!” The test pits we sank were to be a half meter by a meter, and would likely reach the ground water or bedrock. Well, no bedrock was reached, but plenty of other rocks were. At every turn, we were stymied by the multitudes of rocks within out pits (Rocks which Colin had the Gall to call Pebbles.) On that mound, few pits were able to go deeper than half a meter deep before an impassable rock was to be found. The most interesting piece of archeological remains that was found was a length of ubiquitous orange twine, running through two or three test pits.

Colin then concluded that, if there was anything to be found in the mound, we weren’t going to find it without a backhoe, and sent the few of us who had attended the first class off to dig more test pits in other promising locations, and those that hadn’t attended to learn to use the Total Station.

These test pits proved as fruitless as the others, My own, dug between the “Mass grave” and Magic, yielded nothing but a solid layer of Dirt, followed by a thick layer of compacted Sawdust, refuse from the barns the animals stayed in during the winter. Tom, the luckiest of us, found a plastic bag containing two small vertebrae on the surface level of his last test pit.

This really reinforced how much of Archeology is truly dependent on luck. How, even in this site, which, supposedly, is incredibly rich, it is possible for a group of people to fail to find anything, with a number of test pits scattered throughout the area. Who knows, had I sunk a test pit a half meter to the left, perhaps I’d have found my Lion… Or perhaps I’d still have found a whole lot of nothing.

One last note. Word of warning to ya’ll digging next week: Apparently The entire cemetery is a hotbed of Simian herpes. (I exaggerate, but the reason we’re digging at this particular gravesite is that the other one has known Simian burials, which can infect us with some horrific form of herpes… We should be safe at this cemetery, Except that we have NO records of what was buried in what we’re excavating.)

The Pits

2011-09-13T10:47:00.000-07:00

As I, giddy with excitement, boarded the Archaeological Minivan of Science, I realized that I had no idea what to expect of actual fieldwork. I had extrapolated fantastic visions of spelunking inside the ribcage of Magic (the flesh-laden elephant corps circa 1980’s), but what was in store was more exciting than my wildest dreams.

We were there to dig pits.

When our car ride of Anth-jokes and squabbling over music concluded we went for a quick tour through the site, where I had my first real experience with an archaeological pit. Pushing through the tall grass, I came about 10 centimeters from stepping in Magic’s excavation pit from last year; now flooded with stagnant dead-elephant water.

Regardless of the humor that stems from a digging up a dead elephant, archaeological pits deserve a second thought. The reason for their existence is to allow archaeologists to catch a glimpse of a different time. Whether it’s a Neanderthal burial, or a field of dead zoo-animals, the basic principal remains the same: Digging up the past also destroys it, so you’d better get as much information out as possible. This thought is perturbing to me, since it’s too easy to imagine myself blowing the most important find of a site.

Fortunately, in reality things are almost never that glum. When we got to dig our test pits (TPs) we were quickly instructed in all of the proper archaeological methods. Recording the local of an artifact when you find it, and not (albeit hard to resist) immediately yanking it out of the ground to clutch feverously, is just one of many methods we learned.

TPs are simple shovel-dug holes in the ground that allow you to see under the soil you’re standing on, yet they are more complicated than something so simple should ever be. White and King (2007:113) say that “[TPs] are small, square to round excavations generally measuring 40 to 50 cm (1.3 to 1.6 ft) across, with maximum depth depending on local geomorphology and the likely depth of cultural deposits”. Getting down to a depth where “cultural deposits” are likely seemed easy, until “local geomorphology” got in the way. It was often in the form of giant rocks that screeched loudly when hit with your shovel, and got stuck in the mud when you tried to remove them. Occasionally “local geomorphology” took the shape of thick roots that crisscrossed your TP, which made digging much more arduous than originally expected. Just being able to dig down a meter can be physically challenging, as it forced some of us to lie down and continue to dig while at 90º. The most challenging problem I encountered was a tightly buried burlap sack I found at about half the desired depth of my TP. This sack, although technically part of the “cultural deposits”, was immovable and ended up completely thwarting the path of my shovel. No matter how hard I tried it was impossible to puncture, or even dig around this frustration.

As I sweated with annoyance at this sack, my brain began to freeze up. How could a “cultural deposit” in my pit be hindering my attempts at finding something important? In a flash, the futility of trying to understand archaeology strictly in terms of “local geomorphology” and “cultural deposits” dawned on me. You can’t just read a book and then traipse onto the field knowing exactly what to do. Archaeology isn’t astrophysics or theoretical mathematics, no; it’s real science. You have to be able to adapt your theories in a pinch, stay scientific in the most difficult situations, and be able to evaluate whether or not to continue to struggle with a burlap sack. I’m glad to have learned this early on so I can later squeeze as much information as possible out of instructional archaeology texts, and use that information as a frame, not as rule.

It’s amazing what you can learn from a pit.

Works Cited:

White, G. and T. King

2007. The Archaeological Survey Manual. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Can we do better than Google?

2010-12-05T16:30:00.000-08:00

If we were to file our Parc Safari data, would it go under "A" for "African Animals?" Or "Animals (African)"? Or maybe "Q" for "Quebec" (subsection "Africa")? Could the excavation of a zebra in Hemmingford, Quebec ever make a lick of sense without extensive context?

In 2004, a group of archaeologists met in a National Science Foundation-funded workshop to develop a concept that seems paradoxically fantastical and obvious: a centralized cyberinfrastructure, a working database of all archaeological data, ever, in the history of the world. Obvious because, as you the reader knows, all the most efficient organizational systems use online technology; fantastical because Keith Kintigh’s 2006 report on the workshop barely scratched the surface of the logistical nightmare that this theoretical database would be.

There’s a misconception among the Indiana Jones-loving masses that archaeology is a finite field, that almost everything to be dug up has been dug up, and that the whole discipline will one day go the way of the CD (that is, obsolescence). An understandable assumption, perhaps, when the only exposure one has had is a dusty black-and-white photo of the pitted, ravaged Valley of the Kings, but a very untrue assumption all the same. After all, as long as the world spins, things will get buried. As long as there is archaeology, there is new data. And as long as there is research, there is a very real need for easy access to old data.

In the information age, it seems easy to say, “well, let’s throw it online!” Surely after the database is designed and the bugs are exorcised, it will be a self-sustaining system, with all new information sliding neatly into its categories like books on a library shelf. And therein lies the first roadblock.

What is unique about archaeology is that data – the hard facts and the numbers – does not lose its importance, no matter how much new data is discovered. You can only excavate a site once (unless something has gone very wrong), and thus whoever got there first will be the effective data master forever. Even after the archaeologist’s death, new archaeologists will be referring back to those numbers and those pictures for as long as there is interest in that civilization. And since archaeology has existed in some form since the European Renaissance, the collective archaeological record is not only vast, but almost entirely in print.

And it is by no means enough to transcribe the data into electronic form. The ideal database is one that facilitates cross-referencing, which leads to the problem of standards. According to J.D. Richards’ From Anarchy to Good Practice, the documentation standards that exist now, adopted by archaeologists under pressure from libraries and museums of the world, are more guideline than law: “Guides to Good Practice, or Best Practice, but not Required Practice”. Without standards, the decisions you make on how narrow your animal categories will be (i.e. ungulates vs. artiodactyla vs. deer) or what side you support in the metric/imperial war will inevitably clash with the decisions of at least one of your colleagues, and researchers tend to panic when faced with a clash.

Richards goes on to question the real need for standards, using an example that very few people couldn't identify with: in the age of Google, we are all too used to the “type-and-hope” method of research; that is, plugging something into a search engine and praying that something at least mildly relevant comes back. And usually, it works. A truly standardized database would likely operate on a “point-and-click” basis, wherein the user would narrow down categories to find what he or she was looking for. Such a system that could comfortably accommodate all the vast and varied data accumulated over decades would have to be detailed to the point of inscrutability. To simplify the system bears the risk of shuffling aside inconvenient data that refuses to fall neatly into a category. The designers of this database would be walking a very, very thin line. The "Metadata" (the details of how a database is arranged) would have to be very controlled to avoid the comedy cliché of the filing system that, in a quest for maximum efficiency, has become too detailed to be at all useable.

During our discussion, the point was made that, once the database is in wide use, it puts pressure on academics to publish quickly. It would be difficult to take one’s sweet time in writing a dissertation when eager colleagues could easily access your data and begin their own inquiries. It also raises new ethical questions concerning the importance of disclosure in a new age of instant data-sharing.

The website “tDAR” (the Digital Archaeological Record) is the first attempt at a realization of the theoretical database. It is quite new and displays this not-exactly-inspiring disclaimer above the search bar:

“As this is a beta release, we will appreciate your tolerance of any problems you encounter and encourage you to send comments, suggestions and bug reports to [address].”

Out of curiosity, this humble blogger entered “tiwanaku” into the search bar, reasoning that surely the name of such an important site would return a wealth of information. I must say, I was mildly shocked when only a single result appeared. Either the young tDAR is not looking to pressure archaeologists into contributing, or there is a resounding lack of interest from the wider community. Either way, at this point, this isn’t the database we’re looking for. (We don’t need to see its identification. We can go about our business. Move along.)

Despite all this, both the NSF-funded forum and Roberts are convinced of the need for a database. To them, the benefits outweigh the risk. As a student of archaeology who is quite often fed up with the existing online resources, I do hope their vision becomes reality sooner rather than later.

Kintigh, Keith. "The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration." American Antiquity 71.3 (2006): 567-578. Web. 11/05/10.

Richards, J.D. (2009) From anarchy to good practice: the evolution of standards in archaeological computing. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 20 . pp. 27-35.

The Good, The Bad and The Muddy: Ethics for Archaeologists.

2010-11-24T11:01:00.000-08:00

To conclude the educational odyssey that has been this class, we discussed the complex issue of ethics in archaeology. This semester we have learned how to identify, plan, map and execute a successful archaeological excavation, so it seems fitting that our field season comes to close with a discussion about ethics behaviour and professionalism. While ethics are important in any professional discipline, in archaeology ethics are essential because we frequently require access to sensitive cultural material, like human remains, around which issues like ownership and preservation revolve.

Bergman and Doershuk define ethics as “what is good and bad and what compromises moral duty and obligation” (2003, 86). We expanded this definition and decided that for an archaeologist, ethical behaviour is to identify the potential stakeholders involved, their mandates and cooperate with them while still achieving the research goal. We determined that at any one time there are at least three stakeholders involved, the archaeologist, the landowner (whether it be the federal government or a private owner) and the descendent group. In Cultural resource management the client also has a significant stake. As a result, to act ethically one must take into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders involved.

For an archaeologist, the primary objective of an excavation is to obtain as much information about a site as possible, while operating within the law and cooperating with other stakeholder interests. Archaeologists are often ascribed the identity of being “stewards of the archaeological record” (Groarcke and Warrick, 2006, 165) we preserve it, interpret it and can make accessible to the greater public. Does this make our interests more important than those of the other stakeholders? Here in lies the challenge. Whose interests matter more? Does research take precedence over site preservation? Should the wishes of descendent group be more important then those of the landowner? Should all stakeholders be equal? There is no easy answer; yet each excavation team will have to take some form of action.

Ethics are also significant when extracting value from archaeological data. Oral histories from a descent group could contextualize data in way that academic deductions could not. Alternatively, the academic record can identify inaccuracies in the oral history. The oral history of Parc Safari is a good example. Although the site is less than thirty years old, discrepancies have been discovered between the oral history and the material we have excavated. If there is a conflict in interpretation, whose story is chosen as correct?

We also discussed the importance of avoiding biases and considering alternative opinions when interpreting archaeological data. Even within the same stakeholder group differences of opinion can exist. We discussed the divisions between academic and Cultural resource management (CRM) (Bergman and Doershuk 2003,1). CRM archaeological consulting is a relatively new development in the field of archaeology that is concerned with extracting archaeological data as a business. The difference between CRM and academic archaeology is that CRM is conducted to assess cultural remains within sites designated for future development. The result can be a salvage excavation to extract data from a site before potentially damaging construction or development takes place. The data derived from archaeological consulting has, in the past, been deemed as “grey literature”(and has been regarded as less important than the data from academic archaeological research). We discussed the possibility of using grey literature as a source of information for future academic research. Grey literature is a valuable resource, encouraging its use in academia could assist in discouraging the endurance of negative professional stereotypes.

We concluded our discussion by determining that archaeologists of any profession have an obligation to engage neutrally, preferably in the political arena where all stakeholders’ voices can be heard. It is important to remember that the archaeological record is publicly owned; because archaeologists have the privilege of first contact with the archaeological record there is substantial pressure to ensure that our choices and actions comply with the accepted ethical standards of the time. And let’s be honest, complying with ethical standards is a small price to pay for the fun of getting dirty in an excavation pit.

Works Cited:

Bergman, C.A & J.F Doershuk, 2003. Cultural Resource Management and the Business of Archaeology. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by L.J Zimmerman, K.D Vitelli, and J. Holloway-Zimmer, 85-98. New York: Altamira Press.

Groarke L. and G. Warrick, 2006. Stewardship gone astray? Ethics and the SAA. In The Ethics of Archaeology: philosophical perspectives on the archaeological practice, edited by C. Scarre and G. Scarre, 163-177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Digitize This!! (oh wait, i already did)

2010-11-17T11:24:00.000-08:00

Since our days in the field have unfortunately come to an end, Parc Safari 2010 has begun the process of discussing the possibilities of digital archaeology. As a group, we came to the consensus that in order for digital archives to be legible, standards must be applied to allow for comparability. Furthermore, metadatas must be created to facilitate useful comparisons based on ontologies. Our discussion this week turned to the effect of new technologies on field methods. While these technologies do allow for increased data acquisition, they must be taken up with a grain of salt.

It is fitting that during our discussion of the uses of technology in archaeology we should find ourselves with a perfect example of technology as a hindrance. Corroborating Backhouse’s claim “digital data is almost always useless because it generally has no contextual information with it”, the data points recorded by the total station lost some of their significance due to a misinterpretation of context (Backhouse 2006, 53). In order to understand this example, we need to go back in time to Parc Safari, week 8: after setting up the total station over our datum, a tedious process of leveling then adjusting then leveling again, we realized that our labour had been in vain because the stick on which the total station prism is mounted had been forgotten. Luckily, the total station is a technology designed to be adaptable; instead of using the prism to locate data points, a laser can be aimed directly at points to record their location. Since we had already plotted the location of each corner of PSTR1, we could use one of these corners for a temporary datum. This is where the problem came in: we knew that PSTR1 comprised of points 12,13,14,15 but we had not recorded in our notebooks the location of each of these points. So we made the assumption (which turned out to be incorrect) that the points must have been taken in either a counter-clockwise or clockwise manner, such that the northwest corner of PSTR1 would always be point 14. We then continued to plot all of the points for week 8 from point 14, which was actually the southwest corner of PSTR1. The result when Colin mapped the total station points of PSTR1 was a crooked map. In this way, our data suffered because we failed to record its context.

Total Station at northwest corner of PS2010TR1

Another limitation of digital archaeology is apparent in this example: that of digital maps. As Zubrow points out, the perceived reality of digital maps are often greater than is justified (Zubrow 2006, 22). Since our skewed map of PSTR1 is constructed of data points plotted by a sophisticated technology, somebody not involved in the project may view it as a completely accurate depiction. Unlike hand-drawn maps, which show the hand of the artist who produced them, digital maps have the appearance of being a “disembodied view from nowhere” (Zubrow 2006, 22). In reality, however, (like hand-drawn maps) digital maps “are located in culture, space and time” (Zubrow 2006, 22).

Map of PS2010TR1

Despite these limitations digital maps, and digital archaeology in general, provide useful tools for the archaeologist. As Chris pointed out, a hand-drawn map cannot be published in a paper thus necessitating its conversion to a digitized form. Not only does this conversion take time, it also “removes the data one more step away from the individual who made the observations in the first place. An interpretation on site recorded on paper is reinterpreted in post-excavation, introducing data irrelevance and data inaccuracy” (Backhouse 2006, 53). Furthermore, digitizing these maps allows a degree of play with archaeological data. In Bevan and Conolly’s survey of Kythera, Greece, for example, maps of terrain at multiple scales were layered over one another – a technique only made possible with GIS (2004, 132). By creating a mult-scalar map Bevan and Conolly were able to determine terrain curvature. In other words, which valleys appear as valleys at multiple scales? In a somewhat dated article, Dibble and McPherron seem to prophecy Bevan and Conolly’s approach when they write: “the fact is that we can and will explore more possible relationships when data manipulation is made much easier” (1989, 437). Since the possible questions an archaeologist can ask are increased by digital archaeology, “digital developments create or at least influence the creation of theory” (Zubrow 2006, 11).

The use of technology in archaeology offers more efficient, more sophisticated, and faster methods for use in data acquisition, analysis and archiving. Some of these possibilities have been described here. It is important to remember that without standards for recording such data it can become a drop of water in the ocean that is the archaeological record. It is also significant to acknowledge the effect that these new methodologies can have on archaeological theory.

Works Cited: Backhouse, P. 2006. “Drowning in Data? Digital data in a British contracting unit”. In: Daly, P. and Thomas L. Evans (eds.), Digital Archaeology – Bridging Theory and Method. New York: Routledge, pp. 50-59

Bevan, A. and J. Conolly. 2004. GIS, Archaeological Survey, and Landscape Archaeology on the Island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29, 123-138.

Dibble, H.L. and S.P. McPherron. 1989. On the Computerization of Archaeological Projects. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, 431-440.

Zubrow, E.B.W. 2006. In: Daly, P. and Thomas L. Evans (eds.), Digital Archaeology – Bridging Theory and Method. New York: Routledge, pp. 10-33.

Packing it in. Or, how to excavate TR2 in one afternoon.

2010-11-03T23:42:00.000-07:00

Last Friday was our last day in the field. The occasion brought the two groups together, produced several finds, and created a general excitement as we collectively tried to get as much done as we could before we packed it in for the term. As we worked quickly under a slightly overcast sky and brisk weather, we were very aware of the time constraint—as Chris and Colin put it, everything that we did that day needed to be finished. That day.

This week the group split up to maximize our time at the site and the first task at hand was to continue exposing the extended portion of our first trench (PS2010 TR1) since Group A had further exposed portions of several bones. Several bones were unearthed, including a rather large, short, and squat femur which soon became one of the biggest finds of the day.

At the same time, we continued test the subsurface deposits between our first trench (PS2010 TR1) and the Watusi unit, using the same method described in last week’s blog post—a simple and inexpensive coring device. As previously mentioned, we do not yet have a clear idea of the stratigraphy of all areas of the site since many of the layers have been disturbed by the construction of the road. The Parc Safari site was thus a good place to get an idea of the three-dimensional matrix of an archaeological site: most of the site consists of sediment and soil deposits (most of them anthropogenic, or altered by human activity) or constructions (the road), with scant artifacts. While it is largely an additive deposit, consisting of the various layers of animal burials and deposited refuse, there is a considerable amount of deposit subtraction that has occurred through the construction of the road (Kvamme 2005, 425). This post-depositional disturbance accounts for the mixed surface finds that we encountered in our trenches, close to the road.

The crew took turns coring, finding a similar stratigraphy to what had been encountered in the Watusi Pit. Making our way slightly northeast to TR1, we took several samples and found the same thing each time: past the top layer of vegetation there was (1) a loose organic layer, with some roots and grass, (2) a more densely packed layer of soil, and (3) a final layer somewhere between the dirt and clay.

One last core was left, close to TR1, and it was my turn to have a go. It was a bit tougher than I thought it would be, but after briefly contemplating jumping on the handles and treating it like a pogo stick, I gave it one last good shove and in the ground it went. This one was slightly different. After the topsoil there was simply the loosely packed organic layer and the more densely packed layer of soil—so now we have an idea of where the stratigraphy changes in that portion of the site.

To get a better idea of the subsurface deposits, next year’s team may be able to use the brand-spanking new Ground Penetrating Radar (see previous post); however, this year it was not at our disposal. We did have one last project at hand, though—as we were simultaneously continuing to excavate/map TR1 and coring, we began and completed our second trench, PS2010 TR2.

The location of this second 50cm x 2m trench was determined by a hypothesis that Chris and Colin had about the mapping of methane emissions by the geography department. If the methane emissions could be proven to be higher near units that contained bone, then there might be a correlation between the methane level in the soil and animal remains, thus allowing us to include chemical mapping in our arsenal of terrestrial remote sensing techniques.

Chris and Colin seemed to be on to something, and we eagerly excavated the unit next to Peeper 3. Being careful to follow the Golden Rules, we unearthed an array of individual bones, including a tailbone in the southwest portion of the trench. After carefully mapping in our finds, our instructors nearly had to pull us away from our trowels to pack up. It appears as if you really do find everything on the last day…

That lion will have to wait for next year.

Kvamme, K. 2005. Terrestrial Remote Sensing in Archaeology. In: Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 423-77.

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stein, J.K., 1986. Coring Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51, 505-527.

Coring & Augering

2010-10-27T19:03:00.000-07:00

Generally, my opinion of the Park Safari and its excavators is that we are all a rugged bunch. We dutifully and energetically attend to our trench as we did our first test pits.

But say we were not able to dig our systematic test pits and were unaware of the basic stratigraphy of the site- what then? There are a variety of other methods used to examine the innards of a site without actual excavation, saving both cost and time.

First and most simply are the techniques of augering and coring. These methods originated in the geology when it was used to understand the fluvial deposits in the Mississippian Delta region in 1935 (Stein 1986, 506). Once applied to archaeology in the same region, it was used to discern cultural from non-cultural deposits in an area of interest as well as compared to the geological findings to establish a relative chronology. Following the advent of radiocarbon dating, coring and augering became more of a resource for gathering testable material below the surface.

Augering is the more destructive of the two, requiring a drill of varying sizes bored into the ground and returning the soils from below. It can pull up in bucket sized increments the layers which it has disturbed, but they are by no means intact and sufficient for accurate study. To penetrate to large depths of several meters a motorized drill is often used to power the auger.

Alternatively coring involves small tubes- about 3cm in diameter- to be pushed into the ground at predetermined depth intervals and shaken forth to pull up a sliver, albeit a compacted one, of earth representing the stratigraphy of the ground below. It is officially defined by Stein as “a continuous section of sediment or rock obtained by using a hollow cylinder called a corer” (1986, 505). If to be used with radiocarbon or chemical testing, this sample preserves more accurately the layers below.

Similarly, soil testing is common practice in locating indications of human activity; phosphate testing is used to locate where the original chemistry of an area has been disturbed by either fire pits or concentrations of human activity, as when nutrients are removed from the soil by activity, or added in with refuse decomposition (Roskams, 55). At Park Safari we based the site of the trench (PS2010TR-1) on readings taken from the methane peepers set up by the McGill Geology department.

If we were completely unaware of the stratigraphy at the Park Safari graveyard, coring would act as an inexpensive and expedient method for understanding the layers we would encounter upon digging: these would be the organic layer, the mineral layer, and then the yellowish clay layer indicating artifact sterility. Were we to come upon a deposited layer, or animal remains, it would indicate a ‘cultural’ layer, which would then be plotted to a map for overall reference. Our overall picture of the graveyard, however, is severely lacking; there are no known burial sites except for those which have already been uncovered and in the middle of the western field stands what believed to be an old structure and our only indications are from the methane emission readings. A systematized augering test done at intervals through the mounds and vegetation would illuminate concentrations of articulated or non-articulated bones, therefore grave sites (like of lions).

In the last few decades a range of machines have been developed that create images of the sub-surface, blasting far beyond the WWII era aerial photography techniques of mapping. As they lay far beyond our budget, I include only a most special machine in this short post: Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). The cause of a local stir both within and without the department of Anthropology, a newly acquired (or currently being acquired, depending on tense implications, and $$ allocations) GPR machine. In simple terms, GPR functions by sending microwave pulses (300-500MHz) below the surface, and creates an image based on velocity reduction of the wave once it has passed through a denser object (Kvamme 2005, 436-7). This method is highly depended on soil types and water content; our flooded trench, for example, would indicate we stand upon a rocky pond. On some days, indeed this is what I’ve come to believe too. But there is a lion in there somewhere.

Kvamme, K. 2005. Terrestrial Remote Sensing in Archaeology. In: Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 423-77.

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stein, J.K., 1986. Coring Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51, 505-527.

Lions and Curses and Nazis, oh my!

2010-10-20T11:44:00.000-07:00

Can you see that storm a brewin'?

Archaeologists deal with some pretty dramatic circumstances. According to a History Channel documentary I happen to own, we are constantly in danger of noxious gases, earthquakes, attacks by local landowners, curses and Nazi’s. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. These may be legitimate worries though, since I too feel like I’ve finally earned my archaeologist’s fedora. For the last few weeks, we at Parc Safari have had to deal with the worst of the worst. We have had (gasp) inclement weather.

All joking aside, the weather has actually been pretty poor in Montreal of late. And apart from making my teeth chatter and my llama-wool socks wet, the rain has been a bit of a problem on site. In fact, only last week group B was forced to come home in the middle of a field day, despite Chris and Colin’s promises that we (like the US Postal Service) would not be deterred by rain nor snow nor sleet.

It is an unfortunate fact that excavation relies heavily on our ability as field workers to actually see the unit. When the weather is poor, the rain poses some problems. What my fellow students and I recently realized is that rain makes the soil deposits wet (an incredible revelation, I know). This made using a flow diagram, such as the one we were given (to determine the composition of deposits) more difficult. It was harder to differentiate between layers by colour for instance. What I mistook for a change in stratigraphy turned out to be what Colin called a “tub ring”. The rising water table and rainwater left a ring of discolouration on the walls of the unit after we finished bailing.

On the other hand, the rain would have been fortuitous if we had we been using a Munsell chart to determine colour. This is because the rain would have "moistening it until it no longer darkened" which is the proper technique for Munsell. Unfortunately our Munsell chart chips are not waterproof making them useless in the rain. In better conditions a field worker is expected to record not only the colour and soil type (which we tried to do) but also the inclusion size and surface details of each stratigraphic layer (Roskams 2010). We did not make note of the inclusion size but we did, as I will discuss later, map in ‘surface details’.

On a side note: an interesting fact I learned through the readings is the difference between soil and deposit. Soil is created in situ, if you will, by organic means whereas a deposit is brought into it's current location via natural forces like flooding and erosion or by human means (Roskams 2010), such is the case for Parc Safaric where backhoes and large machinery were likely used. But I digress...

Wet weather, along with a high water table also made it difficult to excavate. Not only were the sides of the unit highly unstable but seeing the bottom of the unit was near impossible for group B. According to Colin they could not bail fast enough to keep a dry bottom. I think underwater salvage archaeology is incredibly interesting, but that’s not what we are supposed to be doing here at Parc Safari!

Thankfully, all was not lost. We were not going to throw in the metaphorical trowel. We were better than that as archaeologists, gosh darn it! Given that group B could not actually excavate, they retreated honorably into drier conditions for a lab-style lesson. We in group A managed to practice a few skills that didn’t involve digging too much deeper. Since we uncovered a few more bones (including what is part of an axis) and rocks it was decided that drawing the unit was the next step. Interestingly, we also uncovered a large embedded piece of heavy-duty metal cord.

Chris and Colin led us in a quick lesson on how to draw and map a unit. I have had plenty of practice on mapping, from my field school this summer but only in the base-line drawing method. Chris and Colin proposed three alternative ways to map a site or unit.

Hip chains

This method involves using a forestry tool called a hip chain. It is a biodegradable rope material that is released from a canister hung off of a person’s hip. Like a pedometer, hip chains measure distance, though in metric terms instead of steps to help an archaeologist map a large unit or entire site.

Triangulation

This method is used to determine the location of a point by measuring angles to it, from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly. To use this method you anchor your two tapes at known points (in our case the corners of a unit). Then you level them with line levels and you measure the distance of each to the object. You record this. Then you scale the measured distances with a compass and draw circle segments; the point where your segments intersect is where your new previously unknown point is. Plot this on lattice graph paper.

Drawing screen

This method is very useful for smaller units or those that have a large quantity of material to draw. It involves putting a physical screen over the unit, which corresponds to a metric grid system and plotting the results on lattice graph paper.

The method we used on Friday was the base-line method of drawing. A ‘base line’ is set up along one axis of the unit, using a tape measure along the string. A second tape measure is used to ‘eye-ball’ a point (on a bone, interesting feature etc) that you want to draw, and the distance from the baseline is used. Often a plumb-bob is used for deeper units to help with the estimating. The coordinates are then called out to someone who has a scaled map set up on lattice graph paper and the points are plotted.

He's down there somewhere...

Weather is something we as archaeologists have no control over. We can pray to the (undead) spirit of Lewis Binford all we want but sometimes the day just turns out soggy. We are a resilient type of academic, willing to brave the elements, but we are also bright enough to know when to pack it in. No, we have not found lion yet. I want to believe he’s there though, waiting in our watery unit, biding his time.

RESPECTING THE RULES

2010-10-13T15:03:00.000-07:00

After digging a number of inconclusive tests pits over the past two weeks, we were running out of time ( the deep cold of Quebec slowly approaching). So, Chris and Colin had to intervene in order for the project to get back on track! To help us find something, they asked the biologists (who are conducting a study of the methane level contained in the soil at the site) if they had any insight . They told them that based on a number of sample spots scattered around the (West side of the road) two of them (#3 & #5) showed interesting results. Both had a very high level of methane which increased as investigation went deeper contrary to the other sample which sustained a constant reading throughout the probe. Biologist suggested that it could be an indication for the presence of bones. This meant that we now had a new potential location to explore !

So the goal of the day was to dig a trench! & Hopefully find some BONES

We decided to dig a 2m x 50cm trench (PS2010 TR1) in order to get a more extensive knowledge of the underground.The down side, of this method is that if by any chance we were to hit something we would probably not get a full individual due to the narrowness of the unit. In this case, we would dig a larger trench.

But before we could start digging we had to: clear the vegetation in order to set up the unit and have enough space to dig.

Once this was done we were finally ready to DIG !!!

But we had to keep in mine the Golden rules of excavation:

1) DO NOT dig, EXPOSE! This means that we MUST NOT pull anything out of the unit, roots, rock, artifacts but rather expose them (scrape around) and the remove them. When exposing, scrape away from the walls and remove the dirt as we go. (Roskams, 2001, 228)

2) Keep the unit leveled at all times.

3) Keep the unit wall straight and vertical

Roskams argues for the screening of the soil in order to uncover small artifact(Roskams, 200, 222).But since we do not have a lot of time and we are especially looking for large bones we will not be using this method when excavating, instead we will make a pile of unscreened soil in order to back fil the unit at the end of the season.

After digging for about 20 minutes we made our first find: a feline claw. It was a good start, at least compare to the previous weeks we were finding something! A large concentration of toe bones were also uncovered the majority of them coming from the West end of the unit. We started questioning the fact that we would find only toe bones in the loose surface. Why is that so ? (the only speculation that we were able to make was that the big Cat was buried on his back : ) )

Care was taken to keep the walls of our unit straight at all time but it was more difficult than imagined since it had rain for the past week making the ground very soft and our walls unstable.

About 10 centimeter below the surface we started witnessing some type of silvery material at the centre of the unit, so we started scrapping around in order to uncovered it ( The # 1 rule when excavating is to expose and not to pull out anything until it is not totally uncovered) So since we are professionals this is what we did and finally after completely exposing it, we were excited to discover that it was a pull tab Budweiser beer can probably dating from the 1970s-or 1980s. In his article Glassow discusses the excavation of such “site’s depositional history”, the organic or inorganic remains left at the site by past occupant, and the fact that they can enable us to date the site (Glassow,2005, 158-159).

After uncovering this artifact we realized that our unit was not leveled anymore. (The rule #3 in excavating, archeologist need to keep there unit leveled at all times) It was lower on the West side than not the East side. Even though this task seems simple it becomes very challenging when 6 persons are digging in such a small trench! So we started to dig deeper in the East side of the unit and we made the find of the Day!

In the South-east corner of the trench we found part of an articulated leg of a large animal. Even though, we got really excited and wanted to take the bones out in order to i.d. them we had to restrain ourselves and respect the Number 1 rule: Exposing. While Karen and I were exposing the bones, the other girls went to setup up the total station in order to map them. Once mapped, we were able to remove some of the bones but two large ones were stuck in the south and east wall of the unit. The last find of the day was a small scapula near the south wall in the centre of the unit.

This was conclusive day since we finally found some bones! But we have to keep in mind that archeology is science and that while excavating the Golden Rules need to be respected at all times.

Work sited:

Glassow, M.A. 2005. Excavation. In: Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archeological Methods. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp.133-75.

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambrifge University Press.

“If only it were like Indiana Jones!” or Meditation on the fact that archaeology is inevitably slow but worth it in the end

2010-10-05T19:35:00.000-07:00

(EDIT I was just recently informed that Group B uncovered some exciting remains this past Friday, October 1. So please keep in mind that when I had written my entry we hadn’t found anything yet! merci)

Every aspiring archaeologist almost certainly must confront the unfortunate truth that the archaeological process is rarely as it is portrayed in film and adventure shows. We all hope to discover that coveted research find, whether it be a pharaoh’s tomb, a mythical lost city, or a seemingly trivial ceramic fragment. For us budding excavators at Parc Safari, our search this past week continued for the supposedly bountiful animal bones. When I had first heard about the abundance of animal remains at the site, I had a series of fanciful imaginings of us excavators practically tripping over gargantuan ribs and femurs jutting from the ground. However, after we had begun excavating, the site became more and more in my mind simply the abandoned overgrown field it ostensibly is, void of any noteworthy archaeological remains. Of course this is not the case, but my dubiousness illustrates that the archaeological method is a slow, often painstaking process, one in which your desired finds will rarely present themselves conveniently within the first few days of excavation.

Last Friday, September 24^th at Parc Safari consisted of digging more test pits in order to determine the location of our future excavation unit. As Glassow maintains, test pits are integral to the archaeological process, as they provide the archaeologist with a basic understanding of stratigraphy, as well as an opportunity to come across some material remains like bone or artefacts (Glassow 144). Such finds of late in our test pits included, as Dominique mentioned, the Parc Safari “garbage,” providing evidence that dead animals were not the only materials deposited at the site. A more promising find, one that is directly related to our research focus of finding animal remains, is the retrieval of red rope, which according to Parc Safari staff was used to bind the dead animals prior to their burial at the site.

Upon reaching bedrock, we evened out the sides of the test pit, and proceeded to map out the distinct layers of soil, as well as including any features such as rocks, garbage, or the prized “red rope.” Drawing profiles is more an art than a science – final drawings of test pit profiles necessarily seem to be simplifications, as the layers of soil will rarely be as clearly defined as they are rendered in drawn form. That being said, this perceived lack of difference is inevitable given my considerable lack of expertise concerning soil types; profile mapping requires a level familiarity, achieved only through experience, through which we become more perceptive of such subtle differences. To the unfamiliar eye, things tend to look the same.

Archaeology demands the dedication of the excavator. Our experiences at Parc Safari have further highlighted the fact that, even though we know there are animal bones on the site, the locating of such remains is far from a straightforward task. Although the going is slow, archaeology is rarely unrewarding in the end. I remember for the first time uncovering a cache of ceramic fragments at the top of a Mayan structure in Belize this past summer, and suddenly every source of pain, bother, and frustration was rendered entirely insignificant: the deathly mosquitoes, the suffocating humidity, the trowel and shovel blisters. Fortunately, as humans, we are able to selectively remember and conveniently forget. This capability for me transformed a largely arduous ordeal (upon reflection) into a rewarding, enriching experience. As evidenced by our progress at Parc Safari so far this semester, archaeology is slow and labour-intensive. But it is in the end, I think, well worth it.

Works Cited:

Glassow, M.A. 2005. Excavation. In: Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Eds Maschner H.D.G., Chippindale, C. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

"Find Us the Lion"

2010-09-29T08:21:00.000-07:00

"Find us the lion." At the unset of this year’s Field Course, this (half-joke?) request seemed simple enough to the innocent and ignorant students that we were. After field walking and a first round of test pitting, the cruel reality came crashing down on us: knowing it’s there and actually finding it are two, very distinct things, at the heart of the archaeological problem. Whether relying on the vague memories of senior Park employees or on trade records millenniums old, archaeologists are constantly faced with the problem of finding ― in a more or less vast landscape ― the remains of things past.

Through survey, general areas can be delimited, but there again, vegetation, terrain or simply the cruel yet unstoppable passage of time can hinder our best efforts. The thriving vegetation and uneven terrain of the old Park Safari cemetery offer a concrete example, in which the field walking techniques we implemented may not have been the most appropriate. In any which case, surveying is often the first step taken in an archaeological project, for it may reveal the presence of sites or simply delineate areas of interest. What scanty results we did came up with, coupled with accumulated knowledge about the site and a desire to answer some questions concerning specific areas gave us a general portion in which to conduct test pitting.

Despite some promising results composed of “Park Safari garbage”, the remains of the lion, or any other animal for that matter, were still eluding us. Since the aim of this project is the study of mass graves, and not of the disposal patterns of Park Safari garbage, all those ropes, twines and plastic labels were of little interest for the opening of a proper trench if they didn’t came with the bones we’re ultimately after (Glassow 2005:137). In that regard, some more test pits had to be dug, which is what we devoted ourselves to on September 24^th.

Armed with our pointed shovels, which seemed very appropriate given the thickness of the organic layer and the general nature of the soil (Glassow 2005:140), we conducted a “targeted search” in the north-western portion of the site. Through this small-unit testing, defined as the excavation of an area too small to actually enter (Glassow 2005:144), we intended to establish the nature of the deposits below our feet, in addition to finding the lion. Despite our failure to uncover any bones, which is in itself somewhat informative, we did obtain some valuable information linking the terrain variations we observed during our field walking to varying thickness and richness in deposits, which can further direct our search for the elusive feline.

However laborious and potentially frustrating test-pitting might be, it can also offer some useful information on the stratigraphy and general layout of a site, and section drawing is a good way to record this information (Roskams 2001:144). However, since by nature the deposits we are after are the result of disturbance taking place over a relatively short period of time, section drawings are unlikely to give us any valuable information on chronology. Even if there were several levels at the site, the mere action of digging a grave is likely to crosscut them and thus make a straightforward interpretation of stratigraphy unreliable. Nevertheless, the sections exposed and subsequently drawn did display a superposition of layers, the analysis of which can lead to some interesting conclusions. For instance, it would appear that “Park Safari garbage”, to which previously excavated burials were associated, is to be found at least 20cm below the surface and sometimes at over twice that depth; a disturbed clay layer is a promising clue, whereas an undisturbed one means that interesting material is unlikely to be found below. Since all measurements were made from the surface instead of from a common datum level, direct depth comparisons between different test pits could be misleading; however, once recorded on a section drawing, these information can be connected and can help create a more accurate picture of the underground reality of the site. Moreover, since the spirit of test excavations often dictates that the objects collected be reburied during backfilling (Glassow 2005:145), our section drawings are a good way to record their disposition and depth relation one to another.

All in all, this frustrating absence of bones made us realise the importance of survey and test excavations, for it is now clear that opening a full-scale excavation trench in an area that simply looks good, without prior knowledge, or at least an idea, of what’s below, would defy all logic.

References

Glassow, M.A. 2005. Excavation. In: Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 133-75

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Your Mission: Walk in a straight line

2010-09-21T11:00:00.000-07:00

<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Anth</span>460_Syllabus

How hard can it be? After all every sober person on this continent is expected to do it. Every child from the age of three or so will proudly demonstrate his or her ability to waddle in a straight line from mommy over to daddy.

Yes, the directions sound simple enough but when you are a) trying to walk in a straight line with 5 or more people, or b) trying to walk through some impenetrable vegetation such as tall grass, rocky meadows, or a tree, or c) walking over large distances, it can become quite a challenge.

Despite this Archaeological Survey methods, such as Field Walking, are the essential first steps of any archaeological project. In some cases the site may only ever be surveyed and recorded without being excavated. Though the techniques range from aerial photography, to remote sensing, to topographical mapping, one of the simplest and cheapest methods is to line up a bunch of archaeologists and ask them to walk across the potential site in transects.

This was one of the things we learned to do on Friday Sept 17 2010. It was our first day on the site and for many of us it was our first introduction to archaeological field methods. We had a lot of difficulties walking through the tall grass which was almost a meter tall in places. We even reached clumps of elephant grass which was more than 150cm tall! (I know this for sure because I am exactly 155 cm and there were times when the grass was taller than me). In addition the ground is uneven and full of holes that are covered by the vegetation.

Besides the difficulty of merely walking across the field we also had to make sure that we were walking in pace with our other team members. This could be very hard to do when visibility was low, so we had to rely on each other to look out for those closest to us and pass the news along the grapevine if someone was falling behind.

We also had to make sure that were walking in a straight line! Now this is very hard to do if you don’t have a compass to check your bearings with. However it is very important to take the time to do this because if you don’t you risk cutting into another person’s transect meaning the same ground may be covered twice while another area is not covered at all. As White and King mention (2007) it is the crew chief who sets the pace and the others must pay close attention to him as well as to each other since you may not only be crossing each other’s paths but you may also be covering the ground at different levels of intensity. Depending on the project a more fine-tuned approach may or may not be needed and this will be determined by the crew chief.

Despite all the initial challenges we did find a lot of bone remains scattered on the surface as we surveyed the area on the east side of the road. By carefully sweeping the grass aside with our feet and legs we were able to spot them where they lay on the ground. The finds consisted of various leg bones and pieces of black plastic bags which our instructors said were often found in association with the animal remains. They also told us that the bones were probably churned up by the bulldozers that had passed there to collect soil for backfill.

Such initial finds are often the first clue to identifying new sites. However, as Roskams argues (2001), Field Walking can also provide a lot of information in its own right. One of the problems with the technique is that it assumes that the level of artifact scatter on the surface is somehow proportional to what’s below (Roskams 2001). Though this may not always be true the results do give us an indication of what may be there.

All in all it was a very productive day, and we learnt a lot even with the challenges we faced. It seems fitting that our first steps as Archaeologists, and our first task in this course, mirrored the first steps of many archaeological projects.

Works Cited

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, G. & T. King, 2007. The Archaeological Survey Manual. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek Calif.

2009-11-27T12:19:00.000-08:00

The Frustrations of Archaeology

2009-11-19T20:51:00.000-08:00

Archaeology is always seen as an exciting adventure led by Indiana Jones or Howard Carter… An archaeologist would tell you that it is not so graceful to be in a muddy hole for days and weeks. As students in archaeology involved in the Park Safari we have already a chance to skim through the joys and the frustrations of our discipline.

the joys of bailing

No one can first bypass the conditions of an archaeological site, and explore the expression “a muddy hole”. First this hole needs to be bailed after rainy days, from which comes a bacterial pool of an indescribable colour and texture. Secondly, it stinks some other times, due to the animal fat still decomposing in it. Let’s conclude this section with the formidable suction feeling of your boots, unable to leave the waterlogged ground, as you try to gracefully get out of your hole in front of your professor.

how does this thing work again?

Another element to consider is the technical difficulties and frustrations of this science. We have previously expressed the beauty and accuracy of the total station, but who ever express how difficult it is to keep the prism (reflector on which the total in pointed) levelled!? Or how to locate this bl…dy prism when you need to take topographic points as quickly as possible? Then let’s pass to a more primal tool, the trowel. Fair enough we are only digging bones, but it seems easier to damage them than to find them with your tool. So imagine it is a Viking sword your digging, can the weight of History lies on your trowel? – well in such case you use a brush...-

A happy archaeologist

To conclude, these humoristic reflections are only the tip of the archaeological iceberg. If you think they were aimed at discouraging oneself to get involved in this discipline, you are mistaken. For as anyone of the group and most archaeologists would concur to say – although some won’t admit it publicly - that all these difficulties, complications, frustrations are at the core of their love of the discipline. A love and hate relationship on certain days perhaps, which you may not appreciate at first sight, on your first day on a site… but who knows if you may not relinquish these frustrations soon yourself.

The Archaeological Site, Piece of Living Land

2009-11-13T06:39:00.000-08:00

Archaeology is one of these disciplines which seem to contain a contradiction in its own essence. In spite of being destined to study the living nature of human civilisation – especially if we consider burial rituals as a living interpretation of the dead -; the site’s medium is cold and dead material. However the archaeological site itself is anything but deprived of humanity. This becomes particularly visible when it is imagined as the central point of a wide circle of human lives.

The particular case of the Park Safari animal graveyard makes us realise how an archaeological site is part of a living land. In the distance during the afternoon, we can hear the echoes of the guns fired by hunters not far away. The site become a element of the local community; people come around to see what it is all about, bringing with them their own stories concerning the site and its previous occupants. We have been witness of such phenomenon as a local stopped to tell us that he know the previous owner of the zoo, adding his own interpretation of what was dug, all that while realising he is acquainted with Liz, one of the archaeology students. We may expect that the word will spread around: “Did you know that there is archaeologists digging in farmer X field? Yes there are hoping to find…” a phenomenon which surely exist for every archaeological site in the world.

But there is also another circle of human interactions that need to be considered around the site: the group of archaeologists, students in archaeology, teacher-assistants. For them, for us should I say, the site is much more than just an assemblage of material. It is certainly a part of our life to which we refer in our conversations elsewhere. The site is also a centre where we share glimpse of our own daily life, chatting around our trowels. For us, the site is an escape from McGill benches, a cookie break and a stinky mud puddle, from which come out much more than just artifacts: a group feeling, friendships, laughter.

The McGill team

In spite of aiming at dead material, an archaeological site is a living matter. The experience lived by the local community – which needs to be enhanced through visits and promotion – and the archaeological team is the most vivid proof of this phenomenon. In fact, it is through its humanity that a site like the park safari takes its full dimension; by being incorporated in the society which produced it and kept it alive in its living memory. Not only does it enables a better knowledge of the past of the site, but also enhances its meaning, why doing archaeology if it is not for the people surrounding a site…

Flatulence Conquers Evil

2009-11-11T06:46:00.000-08:00

Right before we discovered the pelvic bone the trowel hit a soft spot in the soil and this liquid goo, the consistency of melted milky chocolate, started to ooze and bubble out from the ground giving off an odour that I can only describe as “ehhck”. What we had come upon was a pocket of methane, a flammable gas that is a by-product of carcass decomposition. Methane is produced by bacteria as they break down matter from within the animal’s intestines. It is the same bacterium that live in the intestines of living creatures and causes flatulence. Methane emissions from decaying carcasses interest professor Margaret Kalacska from the geography department. As methane is a by product of decomposition it can also be used as an indicator for mass burial sites, which could be useful in finding mass human genocide graves which can then be used as evidence to prosecute the people responsible. There are about 20 methane collars placed around the site which measure methane levels in the air and the soil. These collars will help professor Kalacska understand how carcass decay and the environment contribute to different rates of methane emissions. Who knew that flatulence could be so useful?

Remote sensing at Parc Safari

2009-11-06T11:12:00.000-08:00

<- Parc's animal cemetery as seen from space (among clearing and trees on the left).

Over the summer, a McGill geography professor flew over Parc Safari taking photos that would hopefully be useful in her research on locating clandestine graves from afar. Parc Safari's cemetery, without complete records of where and when animals were buried, provides excellent potential for testing the accuracy of predictions based on aerial images. This is a new aspect of the Parc Safari project with archaeology students confirming or contradicting the predictions of where graves are located. In future seasons, students will be more involved in this project. Our group was only introduced to this aspect of the Parc Safari dig this season.

One day at the site, geography student Carrie and a professor took away a few mysterious bags of soil. They spoke about methane analysis and decomposition of animals (taphonomy). Around the cemetery, several methane collars collect valuable information for the remote sensing project. Combining field data and image information is not only useful for us in that we'll be able to know where animals are buried at Parc Safari but will also be useful in providing evidence of mass human rights abuses around the world.

Each week, many of us ride to the Parc in a van lent by the Geography department. Both departments are working closely on the project that could go in so many different directions. Options for future work are many and mutli-disciplinary. Keep the wheels rolling.

Strings, Total Stations and things

2009-11-06T10:29:00.000-08:00

Let me just start off this post by saying it loud, clear and proud: I LOVE THE TOTAL STATION.

Once we finally started to use that piece of machinery, mapping and taking of coordinates went a lot quicker and smoother; but don't most things when you have a computer do them for you? Please don't interject here with protests of computers taking over the world.

The first couple of weeks that we were at Parc Safari, we were relegated to using a tape measure, a miniature leveling device courtesy of Colin, string and a fixed point, which was a stick at one corner of our pit. What ensued was three people trying to take the x, y and z coordinates of our first few finds. These finds consisted of bone fragments, a cigarette butt, small pieces of plastic, etc. One person would hold one end of the tape measure and the string, keeping them parallel, another would hold the other end of the tape measure, and the last person would make sure that the string was level as well as taking notes. This was cumbersome to say the least as three people would get in the way of the other people who were still uncovering artifacts and digging.

This all changed when the Total Station started to be used. Instead of three people hampering others' progress, only one would be in the pit with the prism on a large metal rod. The other two dealt with the machine itself: one person aligning the laser with the prism, and the third taking down notes. What is particularly great about the Staion is that the datum collected can then be collaborated with GIS. I think that most of us, if not all, in the class are excited for this next step.

We had to stop digging… when we hit a wall of dirt-flesh

2009-11-06T10:19:00.000-08:00

When we stood over our excavation pit for the first time, we were greeted by skull of an enormous male watusi. The cranium of the animal was lying alone at the bottom of the pit, its body rather elusive. Professor Costopoulos suspected the body was waiting to be discovered in a particular adjacent wall – it was our task to find out.

With that we began to enlarge our pit with a two metre squared grid unit. We slowly peeled away the living later of the ground. It was much like the reversal of lying down sod – but with an added battle against stubborn plant roots. Once we, the inexperienced excavators, had removed the stubborn stuff, we began chipping away with trowels. It was a slow process as we became acquainted with the dirt, with its texture, with the sound of rock, and of bone. As we slowly revealed the mysteries of the ground below we discovered the very distinct ‘park safari stench’.

It is a smell we will not easily forget – a smell that is not for those with a weak stomach. We would later come to equate the odour with valuable finds – with bones and materials for us to rise from the ground. This time though, it was still a mystery. As we chipped away strategically, the ground began to peel. We were no longer clearing loose dirt, but a foul smelling blackened stringy substance. As we moved along it became yet more substantial and hard to penetrate. When tapped with a trowel it revealed itself as unmistakably solid and somewhat spongy. It also proved to have distinct contours, a very real surface that resembled a massive animal backside (an animal far bigger than our watusi). We had been peeing away decomposing skin and had run straight into a partially mummified animal – and an enormous one at that. We were forced to take another route – the animal was not yet ‘ready’ to leave the ground. Digging would have been a dissection, not an excavation!

-Elizabeth

Watusi Removal 101

2009-11-06T09:52:00.000-08:00

It was unknown to us on this day whether it would be the last day of the dig or not. We had exposed a large amount of bone but with the weather getting colder and the lack of a mostly complete skeleton there was a measure of uncertainty as to whether this day would be our most productive.

The moment Andre loaded the watusi skull into his trunk we knew this was the day.

"Juicy"

An 80% complete watusi skeleton was removed from the ground in about 90 minutes of arduous muddy work, fighting the elements, a rising water table and our sense of smell.

We were separated into groups, tagging and bagging the various bones was Delphine, Emma and Ross, who worked out a very quick system keeping up with those working in the pit.

In the first pit there was Colin and Josephene, who were rummaging around what was under the skull; brain matter, ribs and small bones. In the second pit there was Sean frantically exposing the long bones that we were only beginning to see the week prior.

Amidst this chaos in the pit, Brittni and Elizabeth were gathering points on the total station while Chris was directing traffic and recording speedily in the logbook, making sure the points were properly labelled and relaying the information back to the tagging team for proper identification and eventually mapping.

"Chaos"

It was likely the first day that the entire group was working in tandem, using all the skills we were taught in the weeks prior to culminate into one mass removal in a very short period of time. At the end we were happy that the skeleton was removed, but upset that we wouldn’t be back.

Mysteries of Mass Grave Stratigraphy

2009-11-05T22:40:00.001-08:00

This past semester at the Park Safari dig we uncovered some more the complexities surrounding the burial composition of the cemetery. This semesters' pit continued off of the pit dug from the previous year. It was during last year's dig that the students and the administrators of the course became well aware of the mass grave dynamic found in the burial composition of this particular grave and potentially of others in the cemetery. Remains of bovids, equids and other creatures alike shared a final resting place in this grave.

This semester’s pit extension led to the recovery of skeletal remains in the topsoil. This could possibly suggest that an initial burial of individuals was followed by a second at some later date, since the bones that were found were from small ungulates and were not articulated with one another. As this year’s team continued to excavate the extension we came across a clay ridge that was initial suspected to mark the edge of the grave, but further excavation showed this not be the case as skeletal remains continued into the clay. This shows that the clay was deposited on top of the carcasses during the burial process.

The mysteries surrounding Park Safari’s burial strategies are beginning to come to the surface as each semester out at the site the students of this class unearth the partial or complete skeletons of former attractions from the park. If its one burial or two the faunal analysis of this years finds will possibly shed a light on the stratigraphic relationship between this years finds and that of last year’s.

A Look at the Clay Ridge

2009-11-05T22:35:00.001-08:00

The mysterious clay ridge behind the pelvis

Week 9: Survey, Mapping and Wandering around the Woods in the Dark

2008-12-03T11:20:00.000-08:00

This week marked the final visit to the Hemmingford animal cemetery until the late spring. We set out with a total station borrowed from Geography, an acclaimed total station handler (Chris Ames), some GPS units, a few trowels, and the brimming excitement of those about to go on survey in the woods with Andre. Only about six of us went out, and the rest of the team stayed back at the lab, working on cleaning and categorizing the plethora of finds we already had.
After arriving at the site, Chris found the unique triangular rock he’d used as a datum the year before, and then gave a brief demonstration of how to set up the total station. Claudine stood by taking notes while Noam held the prism. As they began mapping in the locations of some of last year’s trenches (in order to verify that this year’s coordinates matched up with those from the year before), the rest of us set out to do some survey in the field and woods that lay directly behind our site.

We began by examining some of the distinctive features that Andre had noticed on the magnometer map, specifically those that might indicate features of higher elevations than the surrounding landscape. After walking a clear ridge along the middle of the field, we moved NW and found another raised area of turf. Andre, using his powerful archaeological senses, soon found a cluster of large rocks that could indicate some sort of a feature. In short order Graham, Carrie and I began clearing away the brush that surrounded the purported feature, only to find more rocks (and half of a mandible), arranged in a fairly linear manner, stretching back into the woods.

After clearing away vegetation for about half an hour, we followed the trail of rocks into the woods, until they ended in a ditch that demarcated the southern edge of a nearby field. With the help of Andre’s masterful deductive methods, we determined that the field was constructed at a later date than the rock feature (as the former bisected the latter), and may have in fact curtailed the length of the original feature. While this was exciting, Andre had clearly not had enough survey for the day, as he strode off purposefully into the woods, urging us to follow him while speaking loudly so that we were not mistaken for deer and shot.

Moving in a westerly direction, we soon stumbled upon a series of features that greatly perplexed our fearless leader. A series of discrete depressions stretched across a plateau within the woods, and the low lying concavities did not appear to be formed as a result of natural forces. Andre’s logic was that the depressions were not lying on a slope of any kind, and accordingly could not have been formed by the movements of water. Additionally, the depressions were each separated by a few feet of earth, so water could not flow from one to another. The depressions remained a mystery, one that will probably be revisited by the next lucky Parc Safari team.
Our final stop in the forest was at a deer carcass that Andre and Chris had found the year before. While the skeleton was largely articulated, missing only a few long bones that had probably been moved by scavengers, we also changed upon a larger skull (that did not belong to the deer) which had been cut almost perfectly in half. Not wanting to lose such an excellent cross-section, we bagged it and took it back to the lab for identification.

After a brief walk-about with the ‘mapping team’,during which we revisited all of the survey sites to update them on our discoveries, we closed up the site for the year. Don’t worry though – we will continue to update the blog regarding the even more fascinating adventures that lie ahead. Stay tuned for Week 10: Labwork.

Chris sets up the total station while Andre and a bored student wait impatiently.

Chris leveling the TS.

Noam holding the prism.

Chris fiddles with the equipment; the rest of the team looks on in awe.

Mapping begins, with Carrie taking notes.

The view from the field behind the site, looking towards the road.

And again. The TS is the yellow speck off in the distance.

And now there are people at the TS.

Chris and Claudine, waiting for word from Andre.

Carrie standing at the "excavated" stone feature.

Noam, proudly standing beside the total station prism.

Neha, resigned, looks on.

Andre... or sasquatch?

Survey in the woods.

The other field/ where the rock feature ended.

Another view of the field.

The woods in the dark.

Rain boots and mushrooms.

Possibly not the most advisable of snacks.

More deer bones.

Our skull in cross-section.

The deer carcass from another angle.

The maxilla by the rock feature.

Wandering around the field at dusk.

Chris, spreading his wings quite literally.

Kicking at the ground.

Graham doing something in the field.

Startled creatures of the forest.

More woods walking.

All of the pictures that follow demonstrate Andre's attempt to photographically recreate the Blair Witch Project.

Andre: "I think we have discovered a new species of sasquatch".
Chris: "Yes, it would look lovely on my mantlepiece".

Neha shows Andre where the site is located on a map of the North American continent.

Final view of the site.

Week 8: Rain, a Missing Horn, the Garbage Bag Tent, and Femurs...

2008-12-02T12:58:00.000-08:00

Okay, now I realize this is a bit late, but I’m pretty sure that since most of the people reading this are University students you all understand what end of semester papers can do to a person. Now that I’ve finally stopped waking up in cold-sweats due to nightmares involving anthropomorphized papers attacking me I can get on with the task of telling y’all what happened during our eight and final week of excavation.
We once again set out to Parc Safari intent on removing more bones from the pit and hopefully also expose more of the massive horned skull found the week before. However this particular week confronted us with something we had no contingency for, clouds. These clouds and what came out of them will play their role a bit later in this recounting. Upon arrival we once again had to start everyone’s favorite activity, bailing! This week’s bailing went relatively well since by then we were all experts at bailing (I’m convinced that we’d all do rather well on sinking ship). With the pit bailed we began by first removing bones which had been displaced by the water that flooded the pit. With this task completed we moved on to our primary task, which was to excavate the south-west corner of the pit which had not yet been excavated to the same height as the rest of the pit. The hope in excavating this corner was that be excavating this part of the pit we would be able to expose more of the skull found the week before (included the second horn) and to find the missing fourth leg of the equid. As Andre predicted we would not have to go very far before we hit some bones and he couldn’t have been more right. Within minutes we were excavating bones from the south-west corner. What was very interesting about these bones was that four of the bones found were fairly large femurs, found nearly piled on top of each other, which raises many question about how the bones ended up in this position.
Covering the skull itself had been a bag that once fully excavated we removed and then Amelia ignoring common sense decided that we needed to know what was in the bag. What was in the bag is not something I’m particularly proud to be writing about. For the most part it was filled with fairly small bones, assumed to be those of a bird, though two small mandibles were found indicating that it’s possible that other animals were also in the bag. Of course with these bones was a large amount of not fully decomposed material which as you can imagine is not exactly visually appealing (yes there will be a picture of it).
The skull itself also provided much intrigue. We estimated, based on the shape of the other horn, that it would not take us very long to uncover the horn since it shape would have it pointing up. But as we excavated we did not find the second horn. In fact once we were able to excavate the other side of the skull we made a shocking discovery, we didn’t find the horn because the second horn was broken off, which of course raised more questions that we are currently unable to answer. Unfortunately we were unable to excavate the skull enough to take it with us (plus we were pretty sure we would not be able to fit in the car). As this was out last week of excavation it seems that the mysteries of this skull will be left to next years excavators.
This week, other than being a good week of excavation, also featured some rather memorable moments. This marked the first week in which we encountered rain. The rain was relatively light but led to the creation of a masterpiece of ingenuity; the garbage bag tent. This tent, made entirely of garbage bags, effectively kept rain off of everyone’s stuff. However it was heavily criticized for the fact that things became incredibly difficult to access. It was also criticized for the fact that someone (Neha) left Andre’s cookie bag in the rain. I, however, stand firmly by the garbage bag tent as it kept my stuff dry. We also encountered a hunter and his son who were wandering into the forest intent on killing an animal (I assume). Andre proudly introduced them to our pit and showed them the skull which they were impressed with. As they left we noticed the rather large bag of oranges or apples the son was carrying and it became clear that they were not there to hunt but rather perfect their William Tell routine (someone made this joke while we were there, I don’t remember who but I felt wrong taking credit for it).
Before we left the group split into two, one group was sent of to make posts and close off the pit for the season. The other group went to the western boundary of the site, where they noticed that the ridge at the western end of the site shook when jumped on. So a trench was excavated in this ridge and the indications of a floor were found. The current hypothesis is that this is related to the house structure and that below this recently discovered floor there may be a cellar, a hypothesis which needs to be tested next season.
In the end it’s been quite a productive season of excavation and the one thing we’ve determined for sure is that we have a whole bunch of questions which need to be answered in relation to what was found during our excavations at Parc Safari in 2008.

The corner that needed to be excavated.

BAILING!

BAILIN' Train!

Julien and Alison excavate while four pairs of feet watch.

Excavating the South-West corner.

BoneKrusher fails to crush bone.

Yeah that's right we had to bail while we excavated... woo!

"I would help but these gloves are crazy expensive, see this tag here, says made in Italy, these are fancy."

The beautiful and perfect garbage bag tent.

(Is that the cookie bag I see there?)

The broken horn.

Femurs and other bones.

Julien has been in the pit for a while now.

He wants out.

The bird bag...

Femurs!

This one doesn't actually need me to write anything to be funny.

"To answer your question, something like this"

Poke..."Yeah its dead"...

Can you believe she volunteered to do this.

You haven't lived till you've seen Andre jump up and down and smile like a three year old.
Seriously, it was very endearing.

The trench on the ridge at the western edge of the site.

Closing the pit down.

The pit closed down for the winter.

Week 7: Four Skulls, One Pit

2008-11-03T14:03:00.001-08:00

This week’s adventure began with the discovery of an ominous portent: a large, masticated femur was spotted alongside the road that runs past our site. After a thorough examination of the impressive, yet incongruously placed, long bone, intense gnawing along one of the condyles was noted. Though a tractor had clearly been through the marshy grassland east of the road the week before, it was unlikely that such a large artifact had been turned up merely by depositional disturbance. We surmised that some sort of scavenger had invaded our site. While later in the day we did witness a small feral cat prowling around the grassy mounds (which Andre decided to investigate), it is unlikely that an animal of such miniscule proportions could have moved the femur. Current hypotheses range from feral dogs to coyotes to wolves – in summation, we were probably raided by some sort of canid scavenger.

The isolated skeletal element lying in the road was perhaps a harbinger of things to come. We spent the entirety of the afternoon working in Grave 2, as the second team had brought out a lot of skeletal material the week previously, and had presumably found the “bottom” of the pit. Accordingly, we wanted to attempt to find the missing zebra hoof, pelvis, and some of the equid’s evasive long bones. Little did we know that our naïve goal of excavating the rest of the zebra was overwhelmingly unfeasible.

To start with, there were the frogs. There were at least four of them happily ensconced in our pit, and as Claudine found out the hard way, frogs go slightly beserk when you attempt to pick them up. After we spent about twenty minutes bailing stagnant water out of the grave and ridding it of amphibian invaders, we began to go about looking for the rest of the animal. This process was, however, somewhat impeded by the presence of a number of black plastic bags decorating the sides of the pit. Would that they were empty, but unfortunately they were filled with animal carcasses that had not quite undergone full decomposition. This became somewhat problematic as the day wore on, and we were forced to excavate around some of the bags so that animal juices mixed with water and adipose layer would not pour into the pit through the rents and tears in the plastic.

This is not to say that the “cream cheese” was the utmost in carnage we would be exposed to that day. Given that the animal corpses in the pit appeared to consist of 4+ carcasses (not counting the animals in the bags), in varying stages of decomposition, we found ourselves pulling strands of dark decaying hair off of some of the bones, and scraping away dirt only to be greeted by the glaring white that signifies lard. However, the assorted elements of rotting animal inside the pit were nothing compared to what was inside the bags. When Tay, Colin and I moved one, we peered inside and saw what was effectively a solid block of adipose layer – delightful. The resulting smell was an ineffable mixture of sweetly rotten fermentation with far more earthy and organic undertones (If you’re bothered by the sensory descriptions, I’d like to point out the phenomenological analysis is still quite popular in certain post-processual circles, and really I’m only playing to the crow d here).

Carnage aside, the digging environment was further exacerbated by the fact that we were below water table, which meant that every twenty minutes or so we had to halt work and bail the bottom of the pit out with plastic water bottles. Additional fun could be had at the various test pits around the site which were not overflowing with water. Those that had any space left in them got refilled with back dirt, presumably to adhere to rather basic security standards (a word of warning: in an animal cemetery, always look before you put your feet anywhere).

Finally, a word on what we found in the pit itself. The day began with us attempting to extricate the remains of the ram from the plastic bag sinuously woven through its horns and around its ribs, a process further complicated by the metatarsals we kept finding scattered around the bag itself. Tay and Anita worked along the eastern side of the pit, and spent the majority of the day slowly working through a layer of soil/decaying animal and collecting whatever bones they found. However, as the day wore on we realized that the ram and the zebra weren’t the grave’s only inhabitants. We found a skull that looks almost exactly like an alien from a Disney movie (note the perplexed look on even Andre’s face in the photos to follow) and a gigantic horn shaped element that we were hoping was an elephant tusk…until we uncovered the massive bovid skull that it was attached to. Currently the pit totals four skulls, with no complete skeletons as of yet. Guesses as to the identity of the bovid lurking in the SW corner of the pit (underneath the zebra) range from male watusi to yak (and I know what you’re thinking, not the most typical savanna species, but Neha assures me that Parc Safari included them on their website.

The skeletal elements were so tortuously intertwined that we had to make an elevation map of some of the most prominent osseous artifacts (can you figure out I’m running out of synonyms for bones? I think it’s fairly evident). Noam did most of the elevation and grid work while Carrie drew a beautifully detailed map, displayed below. However, the team next week is going to have a lot of work to do. I wish them luck.

Carrie Herzog's map of Grave 2.

Our frog pool.

Beginning to bail out.

Avoiding the back dirt piles.

Merrily bailing.

Frog!

PVC pipe and mandibles... a common archaeological pairing.

The false hoof.

Horns and ribs.

More of the carnage.

Bones and water table.

Andre the overlord.

The glorious life of a PhD student.

Carrie creating her fantastic map.

The sophisticated art of mapping sans total station.

The infamous ram skull.

Awkward mapping.

Ok, if any reader of this blog has any sort of background in zooarchaeology please explain what on earth this is.

Even Andre is puzzled.

Noam, master of tags.

Pit soup.

Crouching Tay, hidden Anita.

The absolutely massive horn.

Metatarsal popcorn.

The recalcitrant plastic bag wrapped around the ram skull.

More of the ram skull.

Corey, avid amateur ram skull handler.

And the side shot.

Kind of fiendish looking, eh?

In the grass.

Andre, once again communing with skeletal elements.

The possible yak horn, somewhat to scale.

Backfilling a testpit can sometimes leave one feeling a bit underwhelmed.

Moving the plastic bag.

"Yak" Skull.

Embedded in the mud.

"Yes minions, I believe that it is indeed dead."

The water table had already begun to fill the pit. At this point it's a labour of Sisyphus to even attempt to keep the bottom visible for a few minutes..

The horn, from another angle.

"Hey Colin, we get to leave the site soon. How does that make you feel?"

"Really. You had all week to pick an outfit and you wore THAT?"

Week 6: No silly, ribs can't have teeth

2008-10-30T08:29:00.000-07:00

Grave 2, "The Glory"

Friday once again greeted us with weather warm and sunny, not unlike the feelings we diggers enjoy as we tear decomposed and disarticulated corpses from the bowels of Park Safari. Week six had a different feel to it as Professor Andre claimed to be out of the country on some sort of academic or professional commitment or something. His story however did not stand up to archaeological scrutiny, for when asked where exactly his conference or meeting (or whatever) was, his only answer was “Iceland.” This is obviously a fictional island that I assume to be located off the coast of Middle Earth. Unfortunately due to Andre’s pursuit of the One Ring, our regular caravan of transportation was reduced by fifty percent and limited our excavation crew to sixty two percent, leaving five beautiful and intelligent students, one fearless TA, Neha, and our multitalented van-pilot, Colin. The three other students would remain at the lab to process and investigate the now sizable number of artifacts from past weeks of excavation.

Teamwork

As upon every arrival at the site we were greeted by sunshine, the sweet smells of agriculture, and flooded test pits. After the completion of our bailing ritual and Colin’s proper and respectful burial of our friend “Floatie” the rat, we laid our eyes on the glory that is Grave 2. If Alpha Group’s last visit during week four had revealed an equid mystery, the current state of Grave 2 could only be described as (literally) wrapped in an enigma. Kim was so excited by the chance to investigate these new questions that she leapt up from her perch on the edge of Grave 2, directly into the bitter and neglected test pit number something or other, which promptly swallowed up her leg as far as her kneecap in brown, cloudy and smelly mudwater.

David. This is impolite.

The process of flooding over the seven days between visits had disturbed articles exposed by Group 1, requiring photo documentation and a furious session of bagging. The tangled mess of ram and equid discovered by Group 1 proved to be even more complicated, each article removed from the grave proved to expose others. Most confusing was my removal of an equid rib that proved to have teeth. While this discovery only strengthened my hypothesis that we are not excavating an equid but some sort of hybrid-equid-ram (a hybriquidam if you will), Allie believed that we had discovered a mandible belonging to yet another individual. Only time would prove which hypothesis more likely. After the removal of nearly two dozen ribs and a pair of scapula, it became clear that we were dealing with a far more complicated situation than we had initially suspected. In addition to the ribs and scapula that we believe to belong to the same individual as the equid skull, Grave 2 now is known to contain the partially exposed ram, two small mandibles and matching cranium, a large number of long, thin and slightly porous bones, a thick and broken plastic pipe, and another individual wrapped in a garbage bag. Movement through this entanglement of individuals was further complicated by the level of decomposition of fat layers in the grave, which had reached a consistency similar to bones. Not only did we have to determine which individual each bone belonged to, but also whether what we pulled out was a bone at all. Kim became our expert in bone/not-bone analysis after crushing a “bone” handed to her by Dave between her thumb and forefinger. This impressive display of brute strength has earned Kim the title of “Bonekrusher,” by which this blog will now refer to her as.

Like a puzzle, but with way more bones. And muck. Lots of muck.

Mmmmandible

Bonekrusher, resisting the urge to crush bone.

A hoof and longbone beside a partially exposed ram horn?

As the main objective of the excavation remains the equid, we refocused or strategy to uncover other articles relating to this individual. The excavation of mass jumble was temporarily abandoned in favour of exploratory digging on the periphery of Grave 2. Neha’s strategy proved productive as three hooves with longbones were uncovered. Their finding did not however alleviate the equid enigma, as all hooves and longbones were on different sides of the jumble. The levels at which these bones were found was also confusing because whereas the ribs were found over and almost around the garbage bag, the longbones and hooves rested under the bag.
Though more questions were on the rise, the sun was in disagreement and suggested that our day had come to an end. Our rugged crew of excavators took some final photos of our days work and loaded up our tools and finds. Colin safely piloted our van back towards the city as we discussed the day’s findings, already nostalgic for our hybriquidam, and looking forward to our next visit.

Bones for walking like zebra.

"Please Colin, teach us more!"

Dispite the keen interest of the diggers, the sun had had enough for the day.

If more photos in higher resolution from week six is your idea of a "good time," feel free to swing by:
http://picasaweb.google.com/computationalarchaeologymcgill/SafariWeek6?authkey=4eqd9FGQ3no#slideshow

Week 5: Neha's Recounting

2008-10-30T07:26:00.000-07:00

So due to a prior commitment, I did not actually make it out to the field for Week 5, having instead participated two weeks in a row and joined the second team for Week 4 (they turned out to be incredibly nice people, despite the rumours). Accordingly, my information for this post is derived mainly from Neha’s riveting recounting of events, and therefore any factual inaccuracies should be blamed on her. Or Andre. That’s fine too. Actually, that’s preferable. He can be reached at andre.costopoulos@mcgill.ca.

During Week 5 the team largely divided their attention between Grave 1 and Grave 2, with Carrie, Noam and Jen continuing to excavate Grave 1. They began by mapping the entire area, providing a detailed depiction of the possible architectural feature. In addition to the boundaries of the ‘inhumation’, they included all of the large rocks on the map, which helps us to visualize whatever it is the possible feature might be. In addition to the mapping, they decided to investigate one of the higher tumuli that is situated within the potential house structure. After digging a cross section, they didn’t find anything telling, but now we have a clear stratigraphic profile for the area of Grave 1, so the undertaking proved worthwhile. Finally, in an episode strongly reminiscent of Colin’s “Cutting a root, cutting a root, cutting a rib, cutting a root….crap” incident from Week 3, Noam got up after hours of digging and realized that he’d spent most his time at Grave 1 sitting on a mandible. In addition to providing yet another amusing Team 1 pratfall, this episode serves to illustrate one of the taphonomic anomalies that characterizes Grave 1. While there is an abundant amount of loose bone on the surface, there is almost nothing except dirt once exacavation down into the grave is begun. Accordingly, next week we’re planning on extending the grave in order to see where it goes and attempt to solve the mystery of differential surface/grave bone deposition.

While all of this exciting mandible discovery was going on at Grave 1, the rest of the team was busy solving yet another mystery (Digression: Parc Safari would provide an excellent setting for a Scooby Doo episode), that of the “zebra” in Grave 2. Since we had uncovered more of the skull and associated ribs during Week 4, the team began to extend the pit in the direction (NW) that they thought the hind legs would be going. Instead of hind legs, a horn began to emerge. Based on the features of the attached skull, the current hypothesis is that the new skeleton is that of a ram, and, as Neha points out “Zebras have no horns”, so it’s unlikely it’s a second equid. As if an additional animal wasn’t enough, current theories also suggest that the smaller vertebrae and associated ribs in Grave 2 do not in fact belong to the zebra. The ribs are far too small for the zebra, and they’re also a mite too small for the ram, so the suggestion has been made that they belong to a fetus, though, as certain TAs reminded me, such an identification is complete speculation at this point.

Oh, and in addition to the zebra, the ram and the possible fetus, something that appears to be a partially decomposed bird in a garbage bag was also pulled out of Grave 2. This particular mass grave is starting to remind me strongly of the whole ‘clowns in the Volkswagen’ scenario. The team realized that the carcass might be avian in nature when they found feathers mixed into the abundant amount of “cream cheese” (Andre’s ‘technical term’ for the pungent adipose layer that surrounds recent burials) that surrounded the bag. As if those weren’t enough elements of decomposition to be dealing with, the team had also begun to excavate down to the level wherein the zebra skeleton was surrounded by evidence of the final expulsions of the corpse. All I can say is that I’m sorry to have missed such an excellent opportunity to experience the thrills of archaeology first hand.

Once the team had finally finished with all the extraneous animals in the pit, the focus returned to the “zebra’. Current theories suggest that the “zebra” is in fact one compact burial, with the animal’s long bones and metatarsals enclosed in its own ribcage. In addition to the discovery of the long bones, the team was enthused to find that they excavated deep enough to begin exposing the “zebra’s” mandible. Thought I was in fact enjoying wine and cheese elsewhere, I was filled with regret that I missed the satisfying sense of accomplishment that I am certain filled the hearts of every member of Team 1. Congratulations guys.

Instead of attempting to map such a tortuous anatomical mess with a line level and string, the administrative decision was made to simply photograph each stage of the excavation, with the two measuring tapes stretched across the pit acting as a proxy for coordinates and quadrants. One of the team’s final acts before heading back to Montreal was to remove the long bones and metatarsals from the ribcage and ‘bag and tag’ them, as the rising water tables in Grave 2 would have disarticulated the elements anyways after another week of exposure to Quebec’s much appreciated seasonal rains. This was followed by the pièce de resistance: the removal of the “zebra” skull. If we don’t get all of the equid bones out of the ground before temperatures drop, I am sure it will be used as some sort of Megalith stage prop. Accordingly, I await further field developments with great anticipation.

The sight we're graced with every week upon arriving at Parc Safari.

"Ok. So. If I were you I might not eat that - I think it's been in the pit"

Jen and Noam preparing to map Grave 1.

Carrie following suite.

Tay and Corey trowelling away at Grave 2.

Andre, very pleased that all of his students are demonstrating their respect for him by bowing. Except Anita, who is reacting to the situation appropriately, I feel.

Grave 2 in all its majesty.

Vertebrae.

The glorious bird bag.

Notice how jumbled the bones are.

The long bones and metatarsals enclosed in the "zebra's" ribcage.

The unexpected horn.

Andre pointing at things.

Andre removing the skull using technologically advanced archaeological equipment.

"Hmmm, I wonder if there's any meat left on this thing."

The mandible - stained red from hematite or some such thing. Neha gave me a detailed explanation which I promptly forgot.

Even redder in a different light.

The tape measure "quadrant system".

Andre poking at mud.

I call this group portrait "Everyone with dirty pants".

Andre's take on "2001: A Space Odyssey".

Collecting the "Little Bones". Bonus points if you get the Canadian music reference.

Anita was very excited about the skull.

If Anita got this excited about anything that could actually be marketed, she could have an excellent career as a salesperson.

A final view of the waterlogged pit - Grave 2.

While his students are mesmerized by the animal remains, Andre attempts to clandestinely practice his famous 'vibrating hand' trick.

Which the girls on the other side of the pit were secretly watching.

Week 4: Not a Giraffe and MORE intrigue!

2008-10-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

It’s not a Giraffe. Of course you already know this because of the spoiler at the end of last week’s post, but I felt it necessary to mention this at the beginning of this post. This was determined not through further excavations of the skull, but rather by using the miracle of Google. A Google Image search led to several interesting photographs of Giraffe skulls and comparing these photos to those photos already taken of the skull found in Grave 2 it became clear that the morphology of Grave 2’s skull is significantly different than that of a Giraffe. Further Google Image searches seemed to indicate that the skull found in Grave 2 was most likely that of an equine.
So this week Alpha Group (which as you all know is Group 2) headed down in the hopes of uncovering more remains within Grave 2, hopefully leading to a full skeleton, and identifying the species of the skull and any associated remains (the two most likely choices; Zebra or Onager). Upon arriving it was fairly certain that the majority of our work would be in Grave 2. However it wouldn’t be too productive to just throw everyone into Grave 2, so Jess and Claudine (who had traded places with Alpha Group regulars Amelia and Lisa) continued to excavate Grave 1 in hopes of gaining more insight into what exactly was buried in what was becoming more and more clearly a complex burial.
The day of excavation in Grave 2 began with everyone’s favorite activity, bailing, the ever present water table once again forcing us to empty out Grave 2 which was filled to the brim with water. Grave 1, owing to the fact that it is not very deep, did not require the ritualistic bailing operation, and thus excavation there began quickly. Grave 1 at first produced some finds, mainly small loose bones, around the topsoil. And then… well after that there was what Andre described as “surprisingly nothing”. So Grave 1 is quickly turning out to be a bust.
Grave 2 was of course the center of attention this week. The discovery of the skull led to a whole bunch of questions, mainly, was there a full skeleton down there? If there was the orientation was of course still a mystery. The previous week’s excavation also uncovered some ribs and this was a possible indication of the way the remains were orientated. The main task thus was to expand the area of Grave 2. We expanded it both to the west and east. The eastern expansion failed to lead us to any other equine remains. What we did find was a garbage bag that seems to be filled with the remains of a deceased animal. The animal contained within said garbage bag was not determined. Frankly, I’m not entirely sure any of us wanted to find out what was in the bag, especially when you consider the fact that emanating from the bag was a smell that would make dung farmers wince (I do not know if dung farming is a real profession, please do not e-mail me with facts about dung farming, and if any dung farmers are reading this I apologize, I truly meant no harm). The western expansion was much more productive and did in fact expose remains which we believe belong to the equid. (Sidenote: As we expanded Grave 2 Kim was talking about dismemberment, she claimed that she had recently been watching horror movies, the rest of us on the other hand were becoming slightly concerned. This will become relevant a bit later in this post). As I said the western expansion uncovered more of the equid remains, mainly the ribcage of which a couple of ribs had already been found. With the eastern expansion a bust the excavators working there moved to the center of the pit in order to clear more area around the skull and hopefully fully expose the neck of the equid. This is where things got intriguing. Located by the skull was the neck, which was fully articulated. The neck led to the scapula, however it led to the wrong end. Instead of leading to the top of the scapula, as is anatomically correct, the neck led to the bottom of the scapula. The neck seems to have been removed from the rest of the body (Kim was right) and even more intriguing was that the cut seems to have been relatively clean. So the big question is… what happened to this equid before burial? It’s, as of right now, an unsolved mystery. Huzzah!
So in the end week 4’s excavations led us to more questions, so it looks like that we have a lot more work to do.
I want to apologize for the tardiness of this post, which has been caused by illness. I also want to thank Graham who will be covering for me on week 6’s post.

Pictures:

The skull after we bailed most of the water out of the pit.
It sure does look like it's trying to eat that bag.

You can totally tell that Kim is thinking of nothing but dismemberment.

The skull and neck. Notice how the neck leads to the wrong end of the scapula.

The ribcage

Andre "teaching".

Jess and Claudine in the semi-isolation of Grave 1

Close-up of the ribcage as its being excavated.

The ribcage as we began to excavate it.

So, yeah we threw nearly everyone we had at Grave 2.

Andre showing Julien how to remove topsoil.

Grave 2 right after expanding the pit. Notice the ribs poking up towards the western expansion.

Uncovering the bag in the eastern expansion.

I believe that Graham is attempting to recover the bag in this picture.

How our wonderful equid looked at the end of the day. Notice how water is already starting to seep in to the pit.

Week 3: Intrigue

2008-10-15T11:00:00.000-07:00

We arrived at the site this week to find that high water tables combined with the recent torrential rains had given rise to vibrant wetland ecology…in our testpits. From the small accusing brown frog in Claudine’s test pit to the bloated dead rat floating in Tay and Anita’s, there were many new sights to take in. Additionally exciting was the fact that we had another professor on site this week – though she was of the Burnside, rather than the Peterson Hall, variety. A newly appointed Geography professor, Margaret Kalacska’s research focuses on the use of remote sensing to identify clandestine graves. As there were plenty of “clandestine” (albeit unintentionally clandestine) burials scattered over our site, she was attending the dig this past week in order to see whether our excavation could prove useful to her field of research.

Instead of continuing to test pit the area, we began to focus on some of the more promising excavations that had been conducted the week previously. Colin, Claudine and I started out on the meter by meter pit that was turning up a lot of human generated debris, and found coffee cup fragments, a bit of plastic and a piece of paper in short order. Oh the social complexity required to generate such beauty!

If you look at the intricately detailed Paint map below, it's possible to figure out where the house pit is in relation to the rest of the site.

Tay, Anita and Carrie turned their attention to Grave 1, an area that had produced a few assorted animal bones when we were digging there two weeks before. Grave 1 is located on the downside slope of a small mound on the western boundary of the site. Over the course of the afternoon, they turned up a mandible, ribs, some epiphyses, a small bird bone, and a nail in a piece of wood. The ribs were a particularly thrilling discovery. Colin, when chopping through some of the more stubborn roots, thought that he had come upon a particularly recalcitrant piece of plant matter, which upon closer examination turned out to be a piece of bone that had been clippered in half. In addition to the amusing excavation pratfalls it provided, Grave 1 is interesting due to its context, as there’s a line of stones in the immediate area that seems to indicate some sort of architectural framework. These large rocks line the edges of the pit where bone was discovered, which suggests that the Parc Safari grave diggers may have utilized a previously existing site (be it a cellar or some sort of oven) for their pit.

Despite my obvious bias towards the house test pit, I’ll have to say that Grave 2 proved to be by far the epicentre of excitement for the afternoon. Early on, Corey came upon what he thought was a large bone, and as time progressed, turned out to be some sort of skull. As just two weeks previously Andre had jokingly stated “This year, I’m gunning for a giraffe”, all of the students assumed that he had inside information and so of course it must be a giraffe.

Fortunately, we didn’t only find a skull. After further excavation, a set of large ribs began to emerge from the east wall of Grave 2, leading us to question whether or not they were related to the skull. We all began to gather around the grave in awe and wonder, as Andre explained that the unidentified skull could either be related to the set of ribs (in which case we were probably going to be able to excavate an articulated skeleton this year) or to the carcass in the plastic bag (in which case we would just have a skull as that carcass was far too ripe to work with). Accordingly, our priority for the next week was to determine whether the mysterious skull was related to the body inside the plastic bag or to the set of ribs, and work from there. By that time the light had begun to fade, and all of the eager, inquiring students were forced to save their questions for another day as they were shooed into the cars to begin the long drive home.

Next week: Is it a giraffe???

Spoiler: No, it’s an equid.

Tay and Carrie digging happily in Grave 1

Chris 'scientifically' testing the resiliency of the earth.

The world's most exciting test pit. Colin, Claudine and I found bits of paper, plastic and even a decomposing coffee cup!

The local wildlife...rest in peace.

Intrigue Part 1: Corey uncovers what appears to be a very large bone in the middle of Grave 2. What could it possibly be? Ahhh, to be present upon the threshold of archaeological discovery.

Close-up. Could it be an alien skull?

Discovery to scale. Whatever that thing was, Corey probably would have lost in a fight.

Notice the Gordian knot of red string at the edge of the pit. It was quite irksome to trowel through as our miniature dollar store clippers were too dull to cut it completely and the larger hedge cutters were M.I.A. Andre eventually wound up ripping it out of the ground, Hulk style. I mean, he carefully excavated around it and then removed it with the utmost delicacy and finesse...right...

It emerges...

My god, a trowel coming out of its eye! Maybe it ate the previous team of archaeologists! Run away! Run away!
For those of you who are less interested in Python references, note the shape and length of the skull, and size and position of the orbital sockets. Giraffe or not?

Andre communing with the beast.

This is actually a different picture. Andre, however, was communing so intently that he did not notice the paparazzi.

"Ok. So. Some bad news. After careful consideration I think we're going to have to address the possibility that this may be some sort of undead ungulate. We're going to need to back fill this pit before the sun sets, just in case."

Colin, solemnly remembering his previous zombie ungulate encounter.

"Actually, on second thought it may just be a giraffe. That would be exciting though."

Our possible giraffe looks a bit like it's trying to eat the carcass in the plastic bag. I'm still voting for undead African fauna.

Claudine lost her sunglasses (Actually, she's going through back dirt, but the former is a much better caption).

Week 2: Floral genocide, surface finds, and… Pepsi can culture?

2008-10-14T12:50:00.000-07:00

Okay, Week 2 (chronological order be damned) brings forth the introduction of Group 2 (who, unable to accept the inferior position of the number two, will for the remainder of this entry, at the very least, be referred to as Group A or Alpha, which is considerably cooler than being number two). This second group, following in Week 1’s footsteps, piled into two vehicles (Alpha Group, due to our coolness, were able to make the trip down in style in a wonderful, shiny, clean smelling rented vehicle. Andre’s vehicle also made the trip down) and headed down to Parc Safari. However, the trip down started with relatively poor planning, putting two of our tallest excavators (Julien and Graham) in the cramped quarters of the back seat of Andre’s car. So after an hour-long drive in comfort (well for some of us) we shuffled back out of the car and appreciated Group 1’s work.
After referencing the magnetometer map it was decided to start up some new test pits instead of continuing on the test pits started during the first week. The consultation of the map led some to believe that a certain consistency in the magnetometer map indicated the presence of a long abandoned road which had run perpendicular to the road currently present on the site. The working theory was that fauna was buried along this road, on either side, with the oldest being buried the furthest away from the current road. Unfortunately, as the previous week’s entry has pointed out, the vegetation in the area is rather tenacious, which forced us to remove said vegetation from our projected work area. This led to what we can only assume latter generations will call floral genocide as we cleared the voracious flora with impunity and ferocity.
The clearing of bush, from the current road moving east, itself led to some interesting finds. As vegetation was removed it became clear that the ground had very different elevations moving from east to west. As explained in the previous post elevation may be an indicator of burial as areas of high elevation may indicate newer burials (due to the fact that any dirt removed to make a grave will more than fill a grave where there is now the added volume of an animal carcass) and areas of lower elevation may indicate older burials (in which the carcasses have decomposed and the ground has collapsed in order to fill the now empty cavity left behind). These dramatic shifts in elevation led Neha to continue her wonderful profile lines from the week before which cumulated into these two profiles:

Along with the dramatically varied elevation, there was also a wealth of surface finds near the western boundary of the site. Within an area of depression several finds were made on the surface while clearing brush. A bit further west, in an area of higher elevation, some more surface finds were made, including an antler. The finds within the lower elevation were more numerous and were deemed more promising to lead to the discovery of a full animal, thus it was in this area that the first test pit of the day was started. A one meter by one meter test pit was started (which would ultimately be named Grave 1) in which several finds were collected as we excavated further. Lisa, Amelia, Kim, and Sian excavated this pit and found about five vertebrae, a series of ribs, a long bone, and a number of vertebral epiphyses and tarsals. Also found were a metal pin and a metal nail. The vertebral epiphyses are an indicator that the find is most likely a juvenile, since the presence of these epiphyses suggests that the bones had not yet fused and therefore did not belong to an adult. Furthermore the finds in Grave 1 suggest that the animal found was an ungulate, possibly a gazelle. Many of the vertabraes were found still articulated within a garbage bag, which suggests that it is possible that a full juvenile ungulate is located in Grave 1, a hypothesis which will need to be tested in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, a couple of us, after extending the profile line, began our own test pit. Graham, Allie, Julien (after some more brush clearing), and I began to dig directly east of Grave 1 in an area of higher elevation. This area of elevation seemed fairly consistent, forming some kind of plateau between two areas of lower elevation. Within this area a one meter by one meter test pit was started. This pit produced some fairly different finds than those found in Grave 1. No faunal remains were found, but the finds that were made were much more interesting than those found in Grave 1. (This is a lie) What was found was domestic refuse (re. trash). Excavated from the test pit were two Pepsi products, a bottle and a can, which were subsequently dated to the mid-nineties. (The discovery of these Pepsi products initially led to the assumption that this was evidence of a long dead culture of Pepsi products that controlled the North American continent for an extended period of time. Unfortunately this theory was later abandoned after the infusion of logic and the realization that Pepsi products are neither alive nor sentient.) Another find in this test pit was a large rusted metal bracket, whose use is still unknown. The most likely source behind these finds of this domestic refuse is that they were deposited during the burial of an animal, possibly indicating an adjacent burial, a hypothesis which will hopefully be tested in the weeks to come.
So next week’s focus will probably be on Grave 1 since it continues to be our most promising test pit, though the domestic refuse test pit may still provide us with vital information about the site.
However I am still not totally convinced that our initial assumption about the Pepsi products was incorrect, so keep an eye on your Pepsi, if it gives you any looks or seems intent on overthrowing our system of governance contact your local Pepsi provider, or drink Coke.

Pictures to come...

Week 1: Initial Survey

2008-10-07T16:04:00.000-07:00

This year’s Parc Safari excavation got off to an exciting start, with a new group of students experiencing the hour long drive to Hemmingford in the trusty McGill Biology van, (or, if they were lucky, the vehicular masterpiece that is Andre’s car). Group 1 was a bit better informed than the pioneering team the previous year as we had both first-hand knowledge of the site (i.e. Andre’s memory) and documents to consult (like the magnetometer map) that allowed us to choose sites for test-pitting. If you've always harbored a secret desire to visit a cemetery populated largely by African fauna, and are consequently on tenterhooks concerning the location of Parc Safari, consult the handy map below for the source of all of this excitement:

View Larger Map

We started off by clearing out some of the tenacious vegetation that had already begun to overwhelm last year’s watusi and elephant pits, both of which were filled with standing water. After some preliminary botanical issues (read: Andre had a run-in with some nettles), and the consequent consultation of Jessica Dolan, the Costopoulos lab’s resident plant expert, the controlled destruction of plant life proceeded apace. Once we had cleared enough space to be able to navigate around the area of last year’s dig with relative ease, we took stock of the situation and began to decide where to place our test pits.

The magnetometer map provided us with a wealth of knowledge as it measured the strength of the area’s magnetic field and its elevation at equal intervals. Different highly magnetic and weakly magnetic zones can call attention to archaeological features like iron artefacts or walls, which will be highly magnetic.It also serves to highlight areas where soil has been disturbed, which is unsurprisingly a potential indicator of burial, as grave pits need to be dug and then backfilled. An examination of the surface of the animal cemetery also proved fruitful, as it allowed us to visually identify depressions and elevated mounds. Areas of elevation may indicate recent burials, with the carcass of the animal creating a sort of tumulus directly underneath the topsoil, while areas of depression may indicate longer-standing graves, where the earth collapses into the concavity created by the decomposing corpse of an animal.

Neha, this year’s TA, took charge of creating a profile of the area by setting up two level lines, one stretching over the most promising area’s North/South boundary and one stretching over the most promising area’s East/West boundary. By using a line level, string and a tape measure, it was possible to measure relative elevations off of the level perimeter line and to produce a basic profile of the area we believed that the most promising carcasses were concentrated in.

The test pits that we wound up digging were north-east of the Watusi and Elephant pits, and were about 50cm × 50cm (or three shovel blade-lengths by three shovel-blade lengths. Test pits require approximation). They produced some interesting finds – Tay and Anita turned up the tibia of ‘some sort of ungulate’ (according to the professorial types at the site), and found that their stratigraphy graded down from a muddier clay layer into a layer of angular pebbles. I turned up a mandible in my topsoil almost immediately, but digging was quite dull until around 40cm or so down, when I found a smooth round protuberance that appeared to be quite hollow. Was it a skull? Despite Andre’s permission to test this possibility by widening my test pit, to my dismay all we discovered was that clay can make a deceptively hollow ringing noise when struck with a trowel.

Meanwhile, Noam and Corey began to dig a test pit close to the N/S perimeter and over the course of the afternoon discovered a possibly mummified animal that was wrapped in a plastic bag, a creamy white ‘adipose layer’, a kneecap of some kind, and a lot of red string. All of these finds were quite promising as both plastic bags and string are harbingers of animal death that the team last year found to be strongly correlated with the presence of faunal burials. Carrie, on the other hand, dug a pit that shed light on the area’s more distant human past, dredging up a pink plastic brush and assorted bits of glass from her more anthropo-oriented area. Finally, Claudine was the only one on the team to discover something completely novel: a test pit totally devoid of either human detritus or animal remains. Congratulations Claudine! (Actually, the digging she did was in reality very important as her pit had a fairly clear stratigraphic profile that will help us to understand the composition of the site).

After ooohing and ahhing over Corey and Noam’s adipose layer and listening to a quick summary of the work that had been done that day, the team headed back to the cars, eager to get back to civilization, or at the very least to Montreal.

A look at some of our high tech gear.

Tay and Anita, thrilled that their hours of labour have produced...well, a pit in the mud.

Carrie, working hard at removing topsoil.

Mmmmmm water table...

We found what was clearly an anthropogenic artefact in one of the test pits. And no, there is nothing wrong with that statement.

Our fearless leader leads us fearlessly... to cookie break.

Carrie, Tay and Corey hang out and recharge.

"Why of course that's a skull and not just a hollow lump of clay Jess! Why don't you expand your test pit and see?"

The frank discussion that resulted when Andre's above statements proved to have been misleading.

Week 8: Cleanup and Wrapup

2007-11-12T10:04:00.000-08:00

Sadly, this week marks the last week of excavation until next season. It has gotten too cold and too dark for us to get much more done, and so we packed up our shovels and buckets, took our final mapping measurements, hopped in the van, and headed back to McGill.

As much as we'd like to keep digging up various exotic animals well into December, it was probably a good time to put a pause on any further excavation. The days are getting significantly shorter each week, and when we arrived at the site last Friday there was a substantial amount of ice floating on top of the water that normally fills all of our pits. As well, we managed to get the majority of the Watusi out, and so are in a good position to begin re-articulating and putting the skeleton together for Parc Safari over the winter. We're missing a few carpals, tarsals, and phalanges, but we hopefully should be able to have something to show for ourselves in a few months time, display-wise.

When we got to the site, we set out to prepare the area as much as possible for the winter. More specifically, this involved filling in all the holes we weren't going to be using, and marking off the pits that will remain open. While the excavation area is relatively secluded, somebody out walking or riding their snowmobile may fall into an open pit if enough snow has piled up to conceal its contours. Naturally, we really, really don't want something like that to happen, and so we shoveled dirt back into every pit we dug except M-5 (the watusi pit) and M-10 (the elephant pit), as we hope to be able to excavate the elephant (and/or the mystery bovid lying just outside the current walls of the watusi pit) next season. We then made a series of stakes, placed them along the edges of our two pits, and strung rope around them. Hopefully, this will be enough to stop anyone from getting too close.

The other thing we needed to do before we could leave was to finish our total station mapping of the area, and this included exploring what was going on on the other side of the road. Because we had so much work to do on the north side this fall, we hadn't really looked around across the street, and so what we found last Friday may be worth investigating and test-pitting next year. Essentially, what we had assumed was a relatively small, natural elevation turns out to a large pile of highly disturbed soil. There were even a large femoral epiphysis (the end of a femur) lying on the surface underneath some light vegetation at the top of the mound. This dirt could be the soil that was removed when Magic was buried, or may have come from another burial event. If so, it may be full of the bones of burials that preceded Magic or the watusi, which is pretty neat.

In terms of excavation on our final day, we fished the bag of bird bones in the watusi pit (there actually turned out to be two bags, but we left one in the pit) out and sifted through its contents. Inside are what appears to be the remains of at least two birds, complete with leg bands on the tibiae and everything. Most, but not all, of the flesh had decomposed to a brown liquid, as well as the feathers (although their cores remained). Interestingly, some pieces of cartilege did survive, floating about in the decomposed goo that was once bird meat. We did what we could to separate the bones and feather cores from the other contents of the bag using a sieve, and took the rest back to the lab with us. As well, we found a mysterious canvas sack full of small mammal bones that no one seems to remember excavating. It seems that, when all of our backs were turned to the watusi pit, this bag magically appeared. Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, we took it with us as well.

Real quick, here are some pictures from our last day:

Above: The white you see is, for the first time at our site, not fat. It's ice.

Above: The shadows are getting longer, and the temperature is dropping. We probably snagged the last nice day to get work any done until next year.

Above: Emptying the contents of the bird bag onto a sieve. One thing that we've all learned from doing this dig is that there is always something out there that will disgust you, no matter how prepared you think you are.

Above: Another look at the contents of the bird bag. Note the leg-band.

Above: The Watusi pit, in full safety mode. Hopefully the snow won't pile up over the height of the rope.

Above: The femur end we found on the mound on the south side of the road. This thing is huge, and doesn't seem to have come from a bovid. If it turns out to be something interesting, we'll be sure to post it.

So that's it. Over the last two and a half months we went from looking for an elephant and a rhino, to not really finding either, to finding a not-so-decomposed elephant and abandoning it, to excavating an animal most of us hadn't even heard of before. Along the way we found garbage, a monkey jaw, bags of birds, muscle and stomach contents in various states of decomposition, an early 20th century farmhouse, newspapers, pieces of fat, miles of red string, and, last but not least, significant quantities of dung. Quite surreal, but a great experience nonetheless, and we've all appreciated it tremendously.

As far as more posts for the blog are concerned, there are likely to be more pictures coming, as well as some brief updates on the status of our lab work and our upcoming skeleton assembly. It would be nice if we could put up some images of the bird skeleton, which is really cool, or the ever-growing pile of cleaned watusi bones we have sitting in the lab. We may be done digging, but we aren't done with this project by a long shot.

Anyways, that's all for now,
The Field School