To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Artificial intelligence is reshaping the contemporary world. Trickling deeper into archaeology and history, these technological changes will influence how the past is written about and visualized. Through the evaluation of text and images generated using AI, this article considers the systemic biases present in reconstructed archaeological scenes. We draw on advances in computer science, running large-scale, computational analyses to evaluate patterns in content. We present a case study examining Neanderthal behavior, juxtaposing published archaeological knowledge with images and text made using AI. Our study reveals a low correspondence between scientific literature and artificially intelligent material, which reflects dated knowledge and cultural anachronisms. Used to identify patterns in (mis)representations of the past, the methodology can be applied to understand the distance between scholarly knowledge and any domain of content generated using AI, across any archaeological time depth and beyond the discipline.
A key dimension of human–animal relationships is predation. People pursue animal resources that support life and health, while ensuring that the costs required to find, catch, transport, process, distribute, and consume these foods do not exceed the benefits they offer. Animals play a key role in human subsistence strategies, and their use and meaning is woven into all other facets of human life, from the sacred to the profane.
Knowledge drawn from ecology, the study of interactions between organisms and their environments, is critical to zooarchaeological interpretation. Using theories and methods common in modern ecology, zooarchaeological research demonstrates the profound impact of human behavior on ecosystems across space and time. Ecological understanding allows zooarchaeologists to understand how humans shaped ecosystems in the past, how those systems shaped us, and how we may adapt to ecological changes in the future.
Taphonomy is the study of the transformation of archaeological deposits from deposition, to recovery, and analysis. These changes occur prior to excavation (first-order changes), and during excavation and analysis (second-order changes). The taphonomic histories of assemblages vary greatly from site to site, and may not be completely knowable, even using multiple lines of evidence.
The intellectual roots of zooarchaeology are interdisciplinary and international. In spite of this global scope, zooarchaeology is remarkably cohesive, and centered on two related goals: (1) to understand, through time and space, the biology and ecology of animals, and (2) to understand the structures and functions of human behavior. Most modern zooarchaeological research falls into three broad areas that inform and shape one another: (1) methodological research, (2) anthropological research, and (3) biological research.
The domestication of animals by people, and their resulting mutual dependence, profoundly altered human societies and the environments in which we live. Recent advances in archaeogenetics and meta-analyses of zooarchaeological data expand upon traditional approaches to the topic and demonstrate that animal domestication was more widespread and complex than previously thought.
Zooarchaeological research has transformed our knowledge about relationships among animals and people. We have a much better understanding of the diverse ways in which people respond to the challenges and opportunities of their environments; the variety of roles animals fill; the breadth of animals’ social meanings; the importance of cuisines in sustaining our biological and social lives; and the magnitude of our impact on the environment. and is increasingly informed by technical and theoretical advances as members of interdisciplinary teams. From this holistic perspective on the human condition, we gain a better understanding of our past, present, and future.
Zooarchaeology is the study of animal remains excavated from archaeological sites. The goal of zooarchaeology is to understand human relationships with the environment through their interactions with nonhuman animals. Zooarchaeology is widely interdisciplinary, global in scope, and practiced by a diverse, interconnected community of scholars with a wide range of experiences, theoretical interests, training, and methodologies.
The practice of zooarchaeology requires familiarity with the types of animals represented in archaeological assemblages, particularly with hard tissues most likely to be present in the archaeological record. This knowledge must be grounded in a basic understanding of taxonomy (both folk and systematic), evolution, anatomy, and morphology. Modern zooarchaeology also requires familiarity with highly technical analyses, such as archaeogenetics, stable isotopes, and trace elements.
A stratigraphic section made of Quaternary alluvial–lacustrine sediments belonging to the Baza Formation (South Spain) has been logged and studied for paleomagnetism, rock magnetic cyclostratigraphy, and electron spin resonance (ESR) quartz dating. Our results indicate that the section, which is found in the vicinity of a number of paleontological and archaeological localities, falls within the mid-Early Pleistocene (Calabrian), within the Matuyama Chron, and runs to the Jaramillo Subchron, encompassing the Cobb Mountain Subchron. The magnetostratigraphic results combined with rock magnetic cyclostratigraphy and ESR provide solid timelines, which allow gross accumulation rates to be estimated, and revealing an upsection decrease of sedimentation in accordance with the lithological and paleodepositional changes. Our study furnishes new chronologies to better understand the timing of the latest stages of endorheic sedimentation that precedes the capture of the Baza Basin by the Gualdalquivir River in the Middle Pleistocene.
Red ochre may be found in igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rock, but igneous and metamorphic sources formed in localized geological events are easier to define. In sedimentary landscapes, ochre sources can be thought of as the geologic formations from which ochre is collected. This study provides the first description of red or red-firing ochre sources in the sedimentary Central Great Plains, based on 17 geologic ochre samples from five contexts: Cretaceous Pierre Shale; Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, Smoky Hill Chalk member; Cretaceous Carlile Shale; Cretaceous Dakota Formation; and Permian system siltstone and shale. Ochre analysis with powder X-ray diffraction reveals mineralogical differences—particularly differences in iron and sulfate minerals—between two defined ochre sources. Source 1 is the Cretaceous Dakota formation, with exposures on the eastern side of the study area. Source 2 includes younger strata exposed to the west: the Cretaceous Carlile Shale, Niobrara, and Pierre Formations. Source 2 ochre is yellow but becomes red at 250°C–500°C. Samples from a third potential source, Permian siltstones and shales (“red beds”; Tucker 2001:60), lacked identifiable iron oxides or hydroxides in this analysis and may not have been used as ochre.