Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in former environments of human behaviour

9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002

Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in former environments of human behaviour

(ed. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer) pp. 1–4

1. An Introduction to Archaeomalacology

Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

What is archaeomalacology?

Archaeomalacology – the study of molluscs in archaeological contexts – is a relatively new archaeological discipline. The field is derived from archaeozoology, the study of animal remains from archaeological sites (Reitz and Wing 1999, 1). In contrast to vertebrate bones, the most common zoological find in an archaeological site, molluscs are the most common invertebrate remains. Other preserved invertebrate groups include sea urchins and other echinoderms, as well as insects. Being less abundant than molluscs, these groups receive little attention. According to Davis: Zoo-archaeology bridges two disciplines – palaeozoology and anthropology/archaeology (Davis 1987, 19). As some researchers prefer the term zooarchaeology to archaeozoology (see discussion in Reitz and Wing 1999, 2–7), so some would prefer the term malacoarchaeology to archaeomalacology. However, we will not debate that issue here, for it will certainly provide an appropriate topic for discussion in the Archaeomalacology Working Group presently being set up under the auspices of ICAZ. Additionally, in this volume it has been left to the individual authors to choose the spelling of mollusc (British) or mollusk (American).

Although bone retrieved from archaeological sites is most often food refuse, it can result from deposition by other agents such as by carnivores and birds. Similarly, mollusc deposits may result either from human activity or by natural means (particularly in the case of landsnails). Just as bones have been worked into tools and ornaments, so too have molluscs been worked into a large variety of artifacts. In the case of the latter, however, and especially marine molluscs, they are collected for the prime purpose of use as ornament. Whether as an abraded specimen that is a ready-to-use bead, or as raw material for the production of more elaborate objects, shells have been exploited for thousands of years.

Molluscs primarily live in three kinds of environment: marine; freshwater; and terrestrial. Six classes of molluscs in marine environments are, namely, monoplacophorans, polyplacophorans, gastropods (the largest class of molluscs), bivalves, scaphopods and cephalopods. In freshwater there are gastropods and bivalves, and in terrestrial areas there are only gastropods. Typically, in archaeological sites we find the remains of gastropods, bivalves, scaphopods, and less commonly, cephalopods and polyplacophores.

Since landsnails are sensitive to climatic and ecological changes, they can be used as indicators of natural climactic conditions. Thus, they are useful for reconstructing past environments. Species identification together with knowledge of present-day habitats and climatic zones allows interpretation of their environment in archaeological terms (e.g. Mienis 1992, Evans 1972). Goodfriend (1991) has shown how changes in oxygen isotope ratios in mollusc shells reflect changes in rainfall patterns. In this volume, we begin with Peacock et al.’s study in America, where these authors use landsnails in a novel way to understand site formation processes at a Late Mississippian site. More studies of this type in the future will support the theoretical basis for using this method in the absence of other indicative means for ascertaining site formation processes.

Landsnails at archaeological sites sometimes represent food refuse, the best known example being the North African ‘escargotières’ (Lubell et al. 1976). Prummel notes the occasional consumption of landsnails at a Hellenistic site, while Colonese and Wilkens suggest an alternating pattern of consumption between marine and terrestrial shells from a prehistoric Italian cave site.

The origins of human marine mollusc exploitation for food are known as early as the Middle Palaeolithic (e.g. Buchanan 1985, Voigt 1982) and sporadic use of shells for decoration or some other non-food use is also present at this time (Taborin 2003). In the Upper Palaeolithic period, there is evidence for the first systematic collection of shells for decoration (Kuhn et al. 2001). Colonese and Wilkens’s study discusses how, towards the end of this period, shells apparently were brought to sites inadvertently, along with seaweeds, presumably for cushioning. Martin discusses the assemblages of shellfish species consumed in prehistoric Oman to reconstruct changing local environmental conditions.

Freshwater and marine molluscs found at archaeological sites are usually the result of human deposition. Some deposits can be considered middens, especially where shells are found in large quantities near a body of water from which they were probably collected. Several papers at the conference deal with these issues, particularly those by: Gassiot Ballbè, Serrand and Bonnissent, Prummel, Karali, and Martin. Molluscs found at remote inland sites include a vast array of artifacts produced for decoration, such as beads, pendants, bangles and other utilitarian or ritualistic objects such as oil lamps or trumpets. As such, they are representative of the trading and exchange practices of past societies. The six studies by Deshpande-Mukherjee, Karali, Chilardi et al., Wilkens, Baruch et al., and Wilkens consider shells as artifacts.

Two papers of many have dealt with these aspects of mollusc studies. Janetski suggests that a change in social structure was responsible for the increasing quantities of marine shells in the Epi-Palaeolithic of the Levant. The cultural selection of specific shell bead types enabled Serrand and Vigne to link the island population of Cyprus with that of the Levant mainland in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.

Dye extraction from muricid shells is one example of an economic use of molluscs. Typically found along the Mediterranean shores, several species of muricids were exploited for the production of textile dyes (see papers by: Minniti, Karali, and Baruch). Ruscillo’s reconstruction of the technology has enlightened our understanding of the processes involved in the production of this substance, and some researchers are attempting to revive these techniques (e.g. Ziderman 2001).

The refuse of a shell midden was later re-used in Orient Bay (Serrand and Bonnissent). These researchers point out how the context in which shells were found is a crucial element in understanding how and why they were used. Prummel’s comparison of two neighboring sites is a good example of how to interpret finds.

Several aspects of archaeomalacology have not been discussed in this volume. Although these papers are generally focused on analyses of specific sites, one such aspect is that of shells used as currency. Whilst cowries had multiple uses as charms and simple decorations, their use as money has regional implications and cannot usually be based on an assemblage from a single site (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2000). With experience, it is relatively straightforward process to identify shell species on an excavation, but interpreting and deciding how the shells have been used and for what purposes presents more complicated challenges.

A brief history of archaeomalacology

Carl von Linné was the first to recognize some shell middens as material evidence for the culture of ancient peoples, but a formal archaeological investigation was first carried out many years later, in the middle of the nineteenth century on the Danish ‘Kjökkenmöddings’ followed by excavations of shell mounds in Maine and Florida (see: Meehan 1982:4).

Stearns’ 1889 Ethno-Conchology – A Study of Primitive Money is one of the earliest attempts of a modern scientist to summarize the ‘state of research’ on the subject. While that work concentrated on the New World, the Old World was summarized by Jackson’s 1917 study entitled: Shells as Evidence of the Migration of Early Culture. Not all works on this subject can be surveyed here, but it is important to note that research on this topic was of interest not only in the English-speaking world but also in Europe. Rivière’s 1905 Sur l’emploi des dentales aux temps préhistoriques comme ornements is just one example.

Brothwell and Higgs’ Science in Archaeology published in 1969 included four papers on various aspects of archaeomalacology. These included a study by Sparks on molluscs as indicators of chronology, climate and environment; on the economic use of molluscs as well as their potential for dating and palaeotemperature by Shackleton; molluscs as food by Meighan; and one on the economic aspects of shells, their use in ceremonies and rituals, and as decoration by Biggs. In this paper, Biggs quotes Boekelman (1936): If all sea shells found, even though apparently unworked, would be saved with the same care that worked artifacts are preserved, it is quite possible that shell trumpets may be reported in some of the Mississippi Valley mounds. Time and again we have heard of field workers of excavations where unworked shells, and especially broken specimens, were not even removed from the sites. Biggs ends his paper by writing Good co-operation between archaeologist and malacologist is the only way to ensure the extraction of the fullest possible information on the ethnology of earlier populations from shells (Biggs 1969, 426).

The 1970s saw an increased interest in the analysis of shell middens as a means of studying past societies and their economies. This trend followed the general study of other food sources, both faunal and floral (including shell midden analysis), considered as a useful avenue for the archaeologist to reconstruct the seasons of site occupation (e.g. Bailey 1975; Parmalee and Klippel 1974; Koike 1979). Not only has cooperation between archaeologists and malacologists improved in the years since, but many scholars today have an education in both fields. The integration of these disciplines with ethno-archaeology An Introduction to Archaeomalacology culminated with Meehan’s 1982 study of Australian aboriginals entitled: Shell Bed to Shell Midden. This was followed by six papers on archaeomalacology in the ICAZ conference of 1982. In the preface to the second volume of the proceedings of that conference, the editors state that: we consider the study of molluscs (and of other invertebrates) to be an integral part of archaeozoology (Clutton-Brock and Grigson 1984).

Two years later in 1986, the Shell Bead Conference held in Rochester, New York (Hayes 1989) was a major contribution to the field. The proliferation of excavations around the world since then brought a plethora of information from different sites and different periods that had not been available previously or whose potential had not hitherto been recognized. Several volumes summarize our current knowledge and have been published in recent years, notably Taborin’s 1993 La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique; Claassen’s 1998 Shells, and Karali’s Shells in Aegean Prehistory one year later. Other volumes, such as Suárez Díez (1989) and an overview by Trubitt (2003) are also useful.

What makes the current volume unique is the inclusion of work conducted at finer scales of detail, and with more sophisticated statistical analyses borrowed from archaeozoology, such as the determination of ‘minimum number of individuals’ (MNI). The analytical work carried out by archaeomalacologists today differs from that of past generations in that there is a more scientific approach to both field and laboratory work. It has been recognized that tighter control needs to be exerted on sampling and recovery techniques. The involvement of geologists and geoarchaeologists enables a more accurate stratigraphic partitioning at sites as well as a better understanding of site formation. Baruch et al., for example, were able to determine that the vast amounts of Nassarius sp. in their site were a result of natural deposition rather than human selection. Light’s comparison of archaeological mussel shells to living examples in the natural habitat of their source gave her clues in determining the true cause of shell abrasion patterns. An experimental approach is reflected in Ruscillo’s study on purple dye extraction, and we hope that experimental work on the production of certain shell artifacts will follow.

The use of chemical fingerprinting for detecting seasonal growth is presented here in Quitmyer et al.’s paper. Techniques of chemical fingerprinting have been used elsewhere (Shackleton and Elderfield 1990) to detect the origins of Spondylus artifacts and to determine whether they were collected in the ocean or as fossils. This was meant to solve a very long debate on the trade and/or diffusion of Spondylus artifacts through Neolithic Europe (Seferiades 1995). More studies of this type are likely to become widespread in future research. Indeed, this follows the general trend in all sciences from empiric to more detailed studies (Horgan 1996).

A future for archaeomalacology

Having studied mollusc shells from archaeological sites for over twenty years, I have often been frustrated by being obliged to present my research at archaeological conferences and archaeo-zoological meetings as an outsider, or in a sub-field, or as varia. Quite often my paper was scheduled last, as it did not fit easily into any category. Studies on molluscs from archaeological sites have not been abundant in the archaeological literature, but despite their gradual increase in recent years, numerous colleagues have shared with me a sense of working in isolation. For these reasons, I proposed to ICAZ to organize the archaeomalacology session at the 2002 international meeting in Durham.

This volume contains a multitude of papers examining different aspects of mollusc use by humans. As archaeologists we have been taught to typologize, our inclination is to divide these papers according to theme. As indicated above, many papers touch upon more than one: molluscs as food, mollusc shells as artifacts, as environmental indicators, as raw materials for dye production, or in combination of these. Therefore, as in the conference itself, I have arranged the papers geographically, from the Americas to Europe, the Mediterranean and Asia. Unfortunately the southern hemisphere is not represented in this volume, a hiatus that hopefully will be filled in the future.

Thirty colleagues have contributed the seventeen papers in this volume. It is especially important for me to mention that while all the papers are written in English, two-thirds have been written by speakers for whom English is not their native language. This is an exceptional opportunity for a wider audience to read original work that might otherwise be available in French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Hebrew or Marathi.

Acknowledgements

I was encouraged by the strong support of ICAZ, its president Melinda Zeder, members of the executive committee, and in particular Richard Meadow and the late Eitan Tchernov, my former Ph.D. advisor. Umberto Albarella and Keith Dobney have encouraged this endeavor from the initial call for papers, through the conference itself and to the production of this volume. Their dedication and good humour along the way is greatly appreciated. I would like also to extend my thanks to the eighteen referees who carefully read and commented on the papers in this volume, and to David Milson who assisted with editing. Their constructive criticism has been invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge the support I have received from the American School of Prehistoric Research at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

References

Bailey, G. N. (1975). The Role of Molluscs in Coastal Economies: The Results of Midden Analysis in Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 2/1, 45–61.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. (2000). The Economic Importance of Molluscs in the Levant. In M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin (eds.) Archaeozoology of the Near East IV A: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, 218–227. Groningen, ARC Publicatie 32.

Biggs, H. E. J. (1969). Molluscs from Human Habitation Sites, and the Problem of Ethnological Interpretation. In D. Brothwell and E. Higgs (eds) Science in Archaeology, 423–427. London, Thames and Hudson.

Brothwell, D. and E. Higgs, (eds)(1969). Science in Archaeology. London, Thames and Hudson.

Buchanan, W. F. (1985). Middens and mussels: An archaeological enquiry. South African Journal of Science 81, 15–16.

Claassen, C. (1998). Shells. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Clutton-Brock, J. and C. Grigson, eds. (1984). Animals and Archaeology. Oxford, BAR International Series 183.

Davis, S. J. M. (1987). The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Evans, J. G. (1972). Land Snails in Archaeology. London, Seminar Press.

Goodfriend, G. (1991). Holocene Trends in ¹⁸O in Land Snail Shells from the Negev Desert and their Implications for Changes in Rainfall Source Area. Quaternary Research 35, 417–426.

Hayes, C. F., III, ed. (1989). Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference. Research Records. Rochester, New York, Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Horgan, J. (1996). The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

Jackson, J. W. (1917). Shells as Evidence of The Migration of Early Culture. London, Longmans, Green and Co.

Karali, L. (1999). Shells in Aegean Prehistory. Oxford, BAR International Series 761.

Koike, H. (1979). Seasonal Dating and Valve-pairing Technique in Shell-midden Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 6, 63–74.

Kuhn, S. L., M. C. Stiner, et al. (2001). Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Palaeolithic: New Insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98/13, 7641–7646.

Lubell, D., F. A. Hassan, et al. (1976). The Capsian Escargotières. Science 191, 910–920.

Meehan, B. (1982). Shell Bed to Shell Midden. Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Mienis, H. K. (1992). A Second Record of Zootecus insularis (Ehrenberg, 1831) from an Archaeological Site in Sinai, Egypt. Malakológiai Tájékoztató 11, 51–52.

Parmalee, P. W. and W. E. Klippel (1974). Freshwater Mussels as a Prehistoric Food Resource. American Antiquity 39, 421–434.

Reitz, E. J. and E. S. Wing (1999). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Rivière, E. (1905). Sur l’emploi des dentales aux temps préhistoriques comme ornements. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 2, 286–289.

Seferiades, M. (1995). La route néolithique des Spondyles de la Mediterranee à La Manche. In M. Otte (ed.) Nature et Culture, Actes du Colloque International de Liège (13–17 décembre 1993) 68, 291–356. Liège, ERAUL.

Shackleton, J. and H. Elderfield (1990). Strontium isotope dating of the source of Neolithic European Spondylus Shell Artefacts. Antiquity 64/243, 312–315.

Stearns, R. E. C. (1889). Ethno-Conchology – A Study of Primitive Money. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1887, 297– 334.

Suárez Díez, L. (1989). Conchas prehispánicas en México. Oxford BAR International Series 541.

Taborin, Y. (1993). La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique. Paris, CNRS Editions.

Taborin, Y. (2003). La mer et les premiers hommes modernes. In B. Vandermeersch (ed.) Échanges et Diffusion dans la Préhistroire Méditerranéenne, 113–122. Paris, Editions du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.

Trubitt, M. B. D. (2003). The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods. Journal of Archaeological Research 11/ 3, 243–277.

Voigt, E. (1982). The molluscan fauna. In R. Singer and J. Wymer (eds). Klasies River Mouth in South Africa, 155–186. Chicago, Univeristy of Chicago Press.

Ziderman, I. I. (2001). Revival of Biblical Tekhelet Dyeing with Banded Dye-Murex (Ph. trunculus): Chemical Anomalies. In J. Kirby (ed.) Dyes in History and Archaeology, 87–90. London, Archetype Publications.

Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

Zinman Institute of Archaeology

University of Haifa

Haifa 31905

Israel

E-mail: baryosef@research.haifa.ac.il

America

9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002

Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in former environments of human behaviour

(ed. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer) pp. 6–17

2. Land snails, artifacts and faunal remains: understanding site formation processes at Prehistoric/Protohistoric sites in the Southeastern United States

Evan Peacock, Janet Rafferty, S. Homes Hogue

Land snails have traditionally been used in archaeology for environmental reconstruction or to investigate human environmental impacts. More rarely, they are used to investigate formation processes (e.g. Bell 1990; Milles 1994). Since they are site-specific indicators of past conditions, rarely suffer from cultural biases, and often are retrieved in large quantities, land snails have the potential to provide useful information on formation processes in a variety of archaeological settings. In this paper, we combine land snail data with information from other faunal remains and artifacts to address questions of duration and post-depositional alteration of pit features at aboriginal sites in the state of Mississippi, southeastern United States.

Introduction

Natural and cultural formation processes are recognized as important topics in archaeology. Bioturbation, for example, alters the archaeological record in a number of ways including the vertical and horizontal translocation of artifacts (e.g. Balek 2002; Peacock and Fant 2002; Van Nest 2002). Although every site is unique to some extent, great progress is being made in modeling the general effects of bioturbation on archaeological sediments (e.g. Johnson 1990; Johnson 2002). Many issues remain to be resolved, however, and new ones continue to emerge. For example, a recently-proposed dating method, the oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR), is based upon chemical alteration resulting from weathering of charcoal particles within the soil (Frink 1994). Translocation of charcoal-bearing sediments obviously would affect the rate at which this process occurs, and hence the resultant dates.

Duration is another topic on which many archaeologists are focusing (Dewar 1992; Rafferty 2004). By duration we mean the length of time over which an artifact assemblage accumulated, a matter of key importance in settlement pattern and paleodemographic research. Pit features can be misleading in this regard. Pit fill often is viewed as representing a short-term depositional event, when in fact pit contents can reflect either primary detritus, or the secondary deposition of artifact-bearing sediments, or a combination of the two. Distinguishing the processes responsible for the production of feature fill may be possible via metric analysis of artifacts and biotic remains. Smaller, more fragmented remains are argued to represent longer-duration deposits such as midden that has washed or been purposely placed into an unused pit. Ceramic refits also bear on this question: a high proportion of refits should indicate relatively short duration, as longer exposure time before final deposition would lead to greater fragmentation and scattering of sherds. Taxonomic richness also can be an indicator of duration, as a greater number of bones, representing a larger number of species, would be expected in a longer-duration deposit (e.g. Zeder and Arter 1996). Land snail remains, too, can be used to investigate duration and post-depositional alteration. The presence of coherent community groups (i.e. taxa that co-occur in the same type of habitat) in archaeological deposits could be used to argue for relatively rapid deposition and/or minimal post-depositional disturbance, whereas a mixed fauna (taxa with markedly different habitat requirements, or a combination of modern and pre-modern shells) could indicate longer-duration or disturbed deposits.

Fig. 1. Location of Black Prairie physiographic province and sites 22OK904 and 22OK905.

The city of Starkville, Mississippi, lies on the western edge of the Black Prairie physiographic province in northeastern Mississippi, U.S.A. (Fig. 1). The Black Prairie is home to a very rich and interesting archaeological record. Parts of the rolling uplands are literally blanketed with archaeological remains, including many occupations dating to the Late Mississippian (AD 1400– 1540) and Protohistoric (AD 1540–1750) periods (Atkinson 1979; Hogue and Peacock 1995; Peacock and Rafferty 1996; Rafferty 1996, Rafferty 2003). The predominant settlement pattern during those periods appears to have been one of scattered small farmsteads located on ridge tops; inhabitants apparently had a mixed economy of maize agriculture supplemented by wild plant and animal foods (Hogue and Peacock 1995; Hogue 2000). Recent highway development around the city led to salvage projects at a number of these small sites (e.g. Rafferty and Hogue 1999). Because they represent relatively short-duration occupations (Rafferty 2004, 2003), the archaeological record for the farmsteads is comparatively clean in contrast to larger, deeper sites in the major river valleys, where repeated or continuous occupations over centuries or millennia produced a very complicated archaeological record. The overlaying of occupational debris over time, coupled with human and natural disturbance of earlier archaeological deposits, blurs vertical and horizontal patterns in artifact distribution at long-duration sites. This palimpsest effect (Binford 1983) raises considerable obstacles to understanding site structures. We would argue that short-term sites, where the palimpsest effect is limited, are ideal places for devising methods of investigating duration and for modeling the effects of disturbance agents on the archaeological record. In this paper, we combine multiple data sets – land snails, faunal remains, and ceramics – to investigate duration and disturbance processes of pit features at two farmstead sites in the Black Prairie.

Natural setting

The Black Prairie has several striking environmental characteristics. The presence of a Cretaceous chalk bedrock led to formation of a gently rolling, upland landscape. The highest elevations were once covered with a relict, acid alluvium, forming what are referred to as acid caps on otherwise basic soils (Rafferty 2003, 191). Much of this alluvium has been lost to erosion, but patches of varying thickness remain. Historical and archaeobotanical evidence suggests that prior to Historic-era impacts a vegetation mosaic existed, with small, grassy prairies occurring on basic soils while the acid caps supported a post oak/hickory association (Hogue and Peacock 1995; Peacock 1992, Peacock 1993; Peacock and Reese 2003; Peacock and Miller 1990).

Fig. 2. Feature 3, site 22OK905. Zone A of the south half of the feature has been excavated; artifacts are lying on top of Zone B.

Field investigations

Controlled surface collections, hand-excavations, and mechanical stripping were employed to reveal artifact distribution patterns and subsurface features at several sites. Features included the remains of wattle and daub structures, postholes, artifact concentrations, and human and dog burials. Of particular interest are large, middenfilled pits. These features, which often cut down into the chalky C horizon, have acted as capsules in which the original soils and artifacts from the time of site occupation have been preserved from subsequent ploughing and land erosion (Rafferty 2002).

The pits are about 30–40 cm deep, roughly circular, and flat-bottomed. They range in size from 1.2 to 2 meters across. They vary considerably in terms of stratigraphy and artifact density. Some appear to represent single fill episodes, with homogenous matrices (Fig. 2); some display clear but simple stratigraphy; some have multiple strata intruded at various levels by postholes and burials (Fig. 3). The pits also contained several thousand land snails, retrieved from light and heavy fractions produced by flotation of all of the fill.

The senior author undertook analysis of the land snails, with the primary intent being paleoenvironmental