Under the Sea: A Discussion of Maritime Archaeology

Underwater Archaeology (Image Source: National Marine Sanctuaries)

Archaeological investigations typically conjure up images of large scale site excavations in jungles or deserts, but archaeology is a much more dynamic field than just excavating a site.  Archaeology involves several stages, and there a variety of different types of archaeological investigation.  A previous blog post discussed zooarchaeological investigations and today’s blog post will address maritime archaeology.

Maritime archaeology is the study of prehistoric and historic archaeological cultural groups as to how they interacted with marine environments (e.g. oceans, lakes, and rivers).  Maritime archaeology involves archaeological, marine, historic, anthropological, geological, forensic, oceanic, and naval architectural investigative techniques.  These are used to study a variety of artifacts, including but not limited to ships, crews, cargoes, ports, shoreline villages, etc.  Maritime archaeology is also known as nautical or underwater archaeology, but these are too narrow in their investigative scope for what is required for maritime archaeology.

Maritime archaeology is a newer subfield of archaeology.  It began informally in the early 1900s by the accidental discovery of a shipwreck in the Mediterranean Sea by sponge divers.  The sites artifacts were salvaged but not systematically excavated.  The field of maritime archaeology did not become a formally defined subfield until the 1960s when George F. Bass conducted the first scientific excavations at the Cape Gelidonya Wreck.

As maritime archaeology involves investigations of archaeological sites in and/or near water the process of successfully excavating a site is quite tedious.  These sites are considered time capsules due to the amazing preservation of the artifacts, particularly organic artifacts, that would typically degrade or not preserve at land sites.  Unfortunately, these artifacts typically only remain preserved in water logged environments, so conservation is key and incredibly important in this field.  Conservation is more complicated in maritime archaeology due to the required transition from water or land environments required for maritime artifacts.  This hard work is beneficial given the information that is gained from these investigations, particularly concerning humans and their interactions with marine environments.

References Cited

Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.  No Date.  “What is Maritime Archaeology?”  http://www.aima-underwater.org.au/what-is-maritime-archaeology/

  

Bass, G.F.  2016.  “The Development of Techniques.”  Institute of Nautical Archaeology.  http://nauticalarch.org/learning-center/guide-to-underwater-archaeology/

Maritime Archaeology Trust.  No Date.  “What is Maritime Archaeology?”  Maritime Archaeology Trust.  http://www.maritimearchaeologytrust.org/whatismaritimearchaeology
 

National Ocean Service.  2013.  “Maritime Archaeology.” National Marine Sanctuaries.  http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/maritime/arch.html

No Author.  2016.  “What is Maritime Archaeology?”  Flinders University.  http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/archaeology/the-department/specialisations/maritime.cfm

St. Augustine Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program.  No Date.  “What is Maritime Archaeology?”  Smithsonian Institute Affiliations Program.  http://www.staugustinelighthouse.org/LAMP/About_LAMP/maritimeprogram

Walking Tall: Understanding the Biological Adaptations that Led to Bipedalism

If we look at our hominid (human) ancestors we will see several defining characteristics that differentiate hominids from other primate species.  While early scholars believed it was our large brains that defined humans as humans it was actually the ability to walk bipedally, or the ability to walk on two legs.  This is a feature that is unique to hominids and humans as we are the only species that are able to walk bipedally.  But how exactly did our hominid ancestors adapt the ability to walk on two legs?  Today’s blog post will discuss the morphological (the form and structure of the body) changes that led to bipedal adaptations in hominids and, ultimately, humans.

Figure 1: Pelvic Girdle & Upper Leg Differences Among Three Primate Species

There are several anatomical features that lend themselves to providing organisms the ability to walk on two legs: pelvic, upper leg, spinal column, and cranial changes.  In order for an organism to have the ability to be a biped the pelvis (hips) must change to allow for a wide range of motion in the legs.  If you look at hominids and humans and their ability to move they have a ball and socket joint in both of their hips, which allow for unrestricted motion (as long as the individual has the flexibility to do so).  Quadrupedal primates have limited ranges of motion based on the placement and angle of the hip bones (Figure 1), which leads to some but not full bipedal abilities.  Typically, if quadrupedal primates (or animals, in general) attempt to walk bipedally it is for short periods of time and can also be quite painful.  

Figure 2: Lumbar Curve

In addition, the placement of the pelvic bones allows for the angling of the upper leg bones.  This allows for an upright posture, which is necessary for bipedal locomotion.  The angling of the legs, however, is not the only feature required for upright posture.  A lumbar curve, the curvature of the lower vertebrae/part of the spine, also enable hominids and humans to stand upright (Figure 2).  This is why individuals with degenerative spinal disorders have difficulties walking because the lumbar vertebrae are most often affected, causing a hunching forward that inhibits the upright posture and effective bipedal locomotion.

Figure 3: Foramen Magnum Placement Among Primate Species

Last but not least, cranial changes are also necessary for effective bipedal locomotion.  The foramen magnum is a large hole in the skull where the spinal cord means the skulls, and the placement of the foramen magnum is a determining factor in the locomotion pattern of each species.  A posterior placement causes quadrupedal locomotion, whereas an inferior placement allows for bipedal locomotion because it allows for the upright posture (Figure 3).

These anatomical features first appeared in our hominid ancestors approximately 4 million years ago.  It is unclear as to why our hominid ancestors developed bipedal locomotion as it has its disadvantages (e.g. reduction in speed as compared to quadrupedal species), but it may have also had several advantages.  But this is a topic for a later blog post (stay tuned!)    

Bibliography

Jurmain, Robert, Kilgore, Lynn, Trevathan, Wenda, Ciochon, Russell L. Introduction to Physical

Anthropology. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 2014. Print.

Stein, P.L. & Rowe, B.M. (2014). Introduction to Human Evolution and Prehistory.  United

 States of America: McGraw Hill Education.

Put A Ring On It: A Review of Marriage Patterns & Types

Kinship is a socially defined means that organizes individuals into family units based on descent and marriage.  Kinship and family is a cultural universal and a product of the social nature of humans (and all primates for that matter).  Kinship patterns do vary by culture, and what may be the norm in one culture may be atypical in another.  The topic of kinship is quite broad as it covers a variety of matters related to familial relations (and what is considered non relations).  As such, today’s blog post focuses on a topic of marriage patterns and types. 

In American culture there is one typical and lawful marriage type: monogamy, or the marriage of two individuals to each other and no others.  This definition of monogamy is rather simple, but it does not account for the wide variety of differences among cultures (and even within our own culture) about which two individuals may and are allowed to marry.  Monogamous relationships can include a man and a woman or two individuals of the same gender (e.g. man and man or woman and woman).  It was the norm until recently in the United States that monogamous marriages were solely between a man and a woman, but with the legalization of homosexual marriage homosexuals may also marry.

Monogamy, however, is not the only type of marriage that exists across the globe.  Plural or polygamous marriages also exist, and these involve the union of more than two individuals.  Another way to look at this concept is to consider it as an individual with multiple spouses.  There are two types of plural or polygamous marriages: polyandry and polygyny. 

Polyandry (poly, meaning many; andr, meaning men) refers to a situation where a female has many male spouses.  Polyandry is present among the various groups or various socioeconomic organizational types (from foragers to state level societies).  A classic example of polyandry exists among the Sherpa of Asia.  The purpose of polyandry among these people was related to inheritance patterns and lack of land resources.  In this culture women inherited property and lands.  There are few land resources available, so women marry multiple men in order to have the men work the land, which is mountainous and requires a great deal of “man power” to cultivate.  In this way, the Sherpa are able to survive in this harsh environment due to their polyandrous marriage patterns.

Polygyny (poly, meaning many; gyn, meaning women) involves a male who has multiple female spouses.  This type of plural marriage is also quite common.  It exists for several reasons, all of which are dependent on the culture where polygyny exists.  For some cultures it is a means of dealing with an overabundance of females within the population.  It can also be a status symbol or symbol of wealth for men who can afford to have multiple spouses.  Ultimately, though, it does appear to have several advantages for females, as they can work together in matters involving their husband, share childcare responsibilities, or negotiate the sexual nature (or lack thereof) of their relationship with their husband.  The Dani of Papua New Guinea practice polygyny, which fulfills a demonstration of wealth and status for the men who are able to support multiple wives.

Ultimately, while family and kinship is a cultural universal there are several variations on this theme.  Not all cultures practice monogamy, instead opting for plural marriages for various reasons (economic or social).  Ultimately, the marriage pattern(s) that exist within a particular society and culture appear to be geographically as well as culturally dependent, hence the variations among cultures.  This just demonstrates that no one way is the best way, and cultural variations allow us to gain better insights into people.    

Bibliography

Gezon, L., & Kottak, C. (2014).  Cultural Anthropology McGraw-Hill  

Scheidel, W.  2008.  "Monogamy and Polygyny in Greece, Rome, and World History."  Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics.

Schwimmer, B.  2003.  "Polygyny."  University of Manitoba.  Website.  

Starkweather, K.E. 2010.  "Exploration Into Human Polyandry: An Evolutionary Examination of Non-Classical Cases."  Masters Thesis.  University of Nebraska.  

Welsch, R.L. & L.A. Vivanco.  (2015).  Cultural Anthropology: Asking Questions About Humanity.  Oxford University Press.