Archaeomalacology Revisited: Non-dietary use of molluscs in archaeological settings

The past decade has witnessed a remarkable momentum in the advancement of archaeomalacological research but there is still a lot of room for progress. These ten papers are the second published proceedings of the archaeomalacology sessions organised by ICAZ (Mexico City, 2006). The contributions revisit important archaeological issues such as provenance of raw materials, dye production and the secondary uses of industrial shell waste, the role of shell artefacts in the symbolic world of diverse civilisations, technology and early cross-regional exchange networks. The papers testify to the merits of using state-of-the-art laboratory techniques to address archaeomalacological questions and demonstrate the interpretative value of integrating malacological expertise with experimental archaeology and detailed knowledge of archaeological context.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Jun 15, 2011
• ISBN: 9781842176276

Book preview

Introduction

Canan Çakırlar

The past decade witnessed a remarkable momentum in the advancement of archaeomalacological research. The number of articles in journals, edited volumes, and monographs dealing exclusively with archaeological mollusc remains increased tremendously. Conference and workshops took place in diverse locations of the world, demonstrating a shared collegial spirit among archaeomalacologists and resulting in fruitful collaborations on international platforms and a well-informed global network. New publications, short archaeomalacological communications and upcoming conferences are announced regularly on the World Wide Web through the ICAZ (International Council of Archaeozoology) Archaeo-malacology Working Group’s home page at http://triton.anu.edu.au/, stimulating a dynamic research paradigm. The consequences of all these developments are well beyond a mere quantifiable increase in the scholarly activities involving the field of archaeomalacology: The last decade has generated visibly improved scholarship that displays vigorous methodology, in-depth analysis, and refined interpretations.

All this is not to say, though, that archaeomalacology has reached its apex; like other fields in their infancy, archaeomalacology is fast-growing, yet still with a lot of room for progress. A broad survey of post-2000 publications dealing with archaeomalacology has noteworthy implications about the different trajectories the field has been taking during the past decade, as well as the challenges it is currently facing. Studies dealing with archaeomalacological material, both worked and un-worked, covering a wide range of geographies and chronological periods are appearing in a variety of publications in numerous languages. Discussing them in detail as they deserve is neither the scope of the introduction to this volume nor is a task I can accomplish with my present capabilities. I would like to, however, briefly mention a few of the scholarly trends I have observed in the archaeomalacology of the past few years:

One of the most important archaeomalacological developments of the past decade has been the recognition of the significance of mollusc shells as tangible evidence for and media of early human cognition and shared symbolism (Kuhn et al. 2001, d’Errico et al. 2005, Henshilwood et al. 2004, Assefa et al. 2008). Earliest ‘shell’ artefacts made by Homo s. sapiens now date to ca. 82 ka BP (North Africa) (Bouzouggar et al. 2007). Recent research into Palaeolithic archaeomalacology also indicates that H. s. sapiens was not the only H. s. sapiens subspecies capable and in need of producing symbolic objects made of marine molluscs. At 50 ka BP, Neanderthals were manufacturing objects of Pecten, Acanthocardium and Glycymeris valves by way of perforating them and finishing them with ochre cover (Zilhao et al. 2009). The publications discussing these molluscan artefacts pay special attention to secure dating and thorough explanation of archaeological context and stratigraphy, which should be exemplary for archaeomalacological research concerning all chronological periods and geographical regions. Among these studies, D’errico et al. 2005 stands out with its scrupulous display of confirming taphonomic and actualistic evidence for the artefactual nature of the Bolombos (South Africa) shells. Important developments also took place in clarifying the meaning of mollusc artefact production and use in Palaeolithic Australia (Balme and Morse 2006), island Southwest Asia (Szabo et al. 2007), and South Africa (Henshillwood et al. 2004), among other regions.

Advances in the archaeomalacology of the Pleistocene expand into studies concerning the dietary uses of molluscs in early human history. Evidence deconstructing the post-Palaeolithic coastal adaptations myth, i.e. theories proposing a date no earlier than the Upper Palaeolithic or even the Mesolithic for the beginnings of human interest and ability to exploit coastal resources, has multiplied. In 2000, Stringer advocated for the possibility of a coasting out of Africa theory, proposing that humans could just as well have dispersed out of Africa via coastal routes, foraging on coastal resources (Stringer 2000). Walters et al. (2000)’s findings of associated lithic and mollusc remains on a Red Sea Coast site, dating to c. 125 ka BP, have been shown as substantial supporting evidence (Stringer 2000). The idea of coasting out of Africa has not been embraced by the scholarly community, however; neither has more convincing evidence indicating early human colonization of the world’s coasts been disclosed since Stringer 2000 and Walters et al. 2000. For the time being, archaeological evidence seems to indicate that, although coastal routes did play an important role in the dispersal of humans out of Africa, and humans were indeed capable of exploitation coastal resources and did so while they were using these routes, mollusc and fish use did not become intensive until the Middle Stone Age, c. 50 ka BP (Klein et al. 2004), i.e. after the beginning of Homo sapiens’ dispersal out of Africa.

In Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic archaeology, worked/used molluscs made their way out of excavation reports and single case papers, and are now synthesized with systematic and theoretical approaches on the one hand (e.g. Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005, Taborin 2003, Trubitt 2003, Alvarez, this volume), and re-evaluated with state-of-the-art analytical methods (e.g. Van haeren et al. 2004) on the other. Research in shell midden archaeology in western and northern Europe has continued its way with full force, with publications of several volumes and articles dealing exclusively with the reconstruction of palaoenvironmental and palaeoeconomical conditions based on the studies of mollusc remains (e.g. Mannino and Thomas 2007, Milner 2002, among many others).

One aspect of the current archaeomalacological paradigm is that, while the molluscs as artefacts vs. molluscs as food dichotomy of scholarly foci (i.e. studies on those mollusc shells which were valued in the past primarily for their hard tissue vs. studies which deal with the archaeomalacological remains that represent the food value of shellfish in the past) continues to prevail, and is likely to become more pronounced as specializations become more specific, obvious is the fact that attention paid to the mechanical properties and taphonomy of the shell remains by the molluscs as food scholars has visibly become greater, and in return, more emphasis is now put on the biological characteristics of worked/used shells by the mollusc as artefacts scholars. To me, this is very good news. It means that the more important dichotomy of malacology vs. conchology is finally in its death bed; molluscs are considered in both branches of the archaeomalacological field holistically as soft animals with hard tissues.

As I said above, there is still a lot of room of progress and expansion in the field of archaeomalacology. There seems to be still quite a few scholarly niches that continue to remain unoccupied. The use of terrestrial gastropods in reconstructions of human palaeoecologies, for example, does not seem to have found much ground for application in countries other than the UK. As much as the methodology of reconstructing palaeoecological conditions based on terrestrial gastropods has its limitations and problems, it is unfortunate that this valuable resource, which has proven advantages especially in correlating on-site palaeoenvironmental proxies with those from off-site locations, is rarely exploited. There are also problematic geographical niches; such as the Mediterranean where we are yet to witness a realization of the true nature and potential of the archaeomalacological evidence presented by the region’s large coastal and continental shell-bearing sites.

Coming to the present volume: The role the present volume plays within this scholarly paradigm is, first of all, continuity. The volume represents the second published proceedings of the archaeomalacology sessions organized by ICAZ (International Council of Archaeomalacology). It consists of ten papers presented at the council’s 10th meeting, which took place in Mexico City during August 2006. Four of these (Alvarez, Carvajal, Claassen, and Murphy) were presented at the session entitled Shells of Mollusca: Environmental Adaptations and Ideological Expressions, organized by myself and Victoria Stosel (then of California State University). Five of the papers (Gallardo, Melgar, Paz, Reyes, and Velázquez et al.) have been presented at ‘the Mexican archaeomalacology session’, organized by Adrian Velázquez Castro. Carrante’s paper was presented as a poster at the ICAZ meeting, independent of either of the archaeomalacology sessions. In Mexico City, I offered the Mexican colleagues to edit and publish the proceedings of both sessions and archaeomalacology-related posters presented at the meeting altogether in one volume, as the second archaeomalacology proceedings from Oxbow Books. It was this initiative that brought about another significance of the present volume to the current archaeomalacological paradigm: diversity – of subject matters, methods, and geographies.

The contributions of this volume revisit important archaeological issues such as provenance of raw materials, dye production and the secondary uses of industrial shell waste, the role of shell artefacts in the symbolic world of diverse civilizations, technology, and early cross-regional exchange networks. All of the papers testify to the necessity and merits of detailed analytical research; most demonstrate the indispensability of the information we obtain from experimental archaeology and archaeological context.

Mexican colleagues contribute to the volume with their outstanding technological studies of pre-Columbian molluscan artefacts combining SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) analyses with the results of a long-term experimental archaeology project taking place at the Museum of Templo Mayor in Mexico City. While the objects they are dealing with are truly exceptional pieces in an art-historical sense in the context of pre-Columbian Mexico, the methodology of these contributions surpasses regional art history, being exemplary for studies of molluscan artefacts from any region of the world. Gallardo explains an astonishing museographic story about how careful contextual and typological analyses changed the identity of an old museum object and secured its proper conservation and public display. Carvajal’s paper represents a remarkably well-researched case of typological study and a good case of how molluscan artefacts can and should contribute to mutual ethnicity vs. close trade network debates that dominate debates of regional prehistories in all parts of the world. Claassen ties various types of molluscan evidence from North and Middle American prehistories with ethnographic accounts and ponders about the meaning of shell symbolism for these societies.

Alvarez accomplishes an enormous task by providing a synthesis of all perforated mollusc objects across the Eurasian Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic, drawing regional and diachronic patterns in the use of certain routes across this geography for raw material exchange. Alvarez’s synthesis has promising implications, yet, as the author himself points out, suffers from the problem of old excavations of the Old World, thereby setting out new directions for future research in Palaeolithic archaeomalacology. Murphy, in another paper dealing with European Upper Palaeolithic, chooses to focus on a single artefact group from the famous Paviland Cave in Wales. The practical methodology she uses to distinguish manufacture traces from use-wear traces on shell artefacts is apt to find universal application.

Finally, Carrante’s contribution deals with the secondary uses of murex dye production refuse – part of a never-ending debate in Eastern Mediterranean archaeology. His findings will certainly stimulate new lines of discussions about the origin and nature of related evidence in the region and beyond.

The volume should be considered as a product of ICAZ and its Archaeomalacology Working Group. As the editor of this volume, I am particularly indebted to the group’s liaison, Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer, and to Umberto Albarella, a prominent ICAZ member, for their collegial support. I would also like to thank all the anonymous reviewers who have taken the time to comment on the first versions of the papers presented in this volume. Adrian Velàzquez-Castro acted as the speaker of the Mexican group, helping out with the editorial process through effective communication.

Bibliography

Antczak, A. and Cipriani, R. (eds). (2008). Early Human Impact on Megamolluscs. British Archaeological Reports, International Series no.1865. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Assefa, Z., Lam, Y. M., and Mienis, H. K. (2008). Symbolic Use of Terrestrial Gastropod Opercula during the Middle Stone Age at Porc-Epic Cave, Ethiopia. Current Anthropology 49, 746–756.

Balme, J. and Morse, K. (2006). Shell beads and social behaviour in Pleistocene Australia. Antiquity 80, 799–811.

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