Animal stories from beneath the soil

The study of how people used and interacted with animals in the past is called zooarchaeology.  Animal remains in the form of bones, teeth, antler and horn, and shell can tell us a great deal about people’s adaptions relating to subsistence activities and how they changed through time. 

The first step is identifying what elements and animals are represented in a site.  Very rarely are complete items recovered, as most are found as small pieces due to cultural and/or natural factors.  Archaeologists must determine if the fragments can be assigned to certain elements, such as a femur or molar. From there, efforts are made to classify the animal to the most specific level possible (e.g., mule deer, freshwater mussel, salmon, waterfowl, turtle, etc.).  The result is an inventory of the various animals harvested, processed, and/or consumed by the site inhabitants

The presence and distribution of animal remains with characteristics relating to skinning, butchering, and cooking allows archaeologists to interpret the kinds of animal processing taking place, how people organized their subsistence activities (e.g., butchering and cooking in separate site areas or separate sites), and the intensity of the activities.  

For instance, skinning and disarticulating a carcass often left cut marks from stone knives near the ends of limb bones or smashing marks from choppers on rib bones. Roasting over a fire often resulted in bone burning.  Calorie-rich marrow was harvested by breaking bones with stone hammers, leaving impact marks and curving fractures.  Grease rendering involving bone boiling is often represented by concentrations of highly fragmented bone.

The archaeologist may note that certain elements are present or absent in a site.  One interpretation of this situation is that hunters engaged in selective butchering and transport activities when large animals were killed a distance from camp, or many animals were harvested without enough time to process all the meat before spoilage.  Those portions removed and taken to the camp are interpreted to have high subsistence value, such as those containing the ribs and the limb bones, while those left behind at the kill site are interpreted to be lower-value.

Archaeologists also attempt to ascertain how many of each animal is present at a site.  This is done by selecting the most highly represented element of each animal. For instance, there may be 11 femurs from elk in a site occupation, of which seven are right side femurs and four are left side femurs. The basic interpretation would be that a minimum of seven elk are represented because the four left femurs would be considered partners to four of the right femurs.  Further, this amount would represent an intensive hunting and processing activity providing the site inhabitants with significant amounts of calories and manufacturing materials.  By conducting such an analysis, it is possible to make interpretations about the relative importance of animals to inhabitants or availability of certain animals in an area, and the levels of effort spent on pursuing the identified animals.

The seasonal variability in animal availability or anatomy can be used to interpret the time of year for site occupation. Sockeye salmon are seasonally migratory so the recovery of large numbers of their bones point to a fall harvesting period.  The presence of an adult male deer skull lacking antlers indicates it was harvested between January and April, the period in which antlers were shed and before they grew back.  While radiocarbon dating may reveal a site is 4,270 years old, analysis of animal remains may determine that people lived there between September and November.

Oh, the stories those old bones can tell.

What archaeologists do and don’t do

I was having a conversation with a co-worker this week about comments and questions we receive from the public when they find out we are archaeologists.  We always try to provide clarification, generate interest in archaeology, and educate people about the aims of cultural resource management.

However, one comment that is often difficult to address is “the archaeologist shut down my project”.  I’ve heard this statement a number of times and thought it might be a useful exercise to walk through the assessment and decision-making process to create awareness of what archaeologists do and what they don’t when it comes to a developer completing a project. 

A local or provincial government agency review of a developer’s proposed project may trigger the need to undertake an archaeological assessment.  The archaeologist conducts an assessment to determine if documented or yet-to-be identified archaeological sites may be altered by the proposed project and provide guidance to the developer, per guidelines associated with the Heritage Conservation Act. 

When archaeologists are engaged to conduct an assessment, we provide the client with an initial, well-scoped work plan and budget based on a number of variables.  We make efforts to discuss these variables with the client because no two projects are the same. We need to know the type and dimensions of the proposed impacts, which can vary greatly (e.g., residential construction versus pipeline construction). Understanding the project location allows us to determine the logistics required for the assessment and which First Nations will be involved as part of the crew or in permitting.  It also allows us to research the setting and generate expectations of the archaeological site types we may encounter.   

Now, it is important to remember that much of what archaeologists look for is not immediately visible.  While some sites have a surface expression, such as pit house depressions, many of the sites are buried and we need to conduct subsurface testing to find them. That means we may not know if sites are present or how big they are when we provide the initial work plan to the client.  We take efforts to make this clear and indicate that, if the fieldwork results exceed the expectations in the initial workplan, we must generate a revised workplan/budget that has to be approved by the client before proceeding further. Just like when a mechanic finds something unexpected on your vehicle when you take it in for a brake job and must get your approval to repair it, the scope and cost of archaeological assessments are subject to modification based on what we encounter during fieldwork.

Further, the archaeologist works with the client to develop strategies to address the presence of archaeological sites in the proposed project area once the assessment is complete.  This includes looking for options to avoid or reduce impacts to sites through design modifications. If the client does not wish to modify the design, then a determination is made of how much of the site will be impacted and the amount of archaeological work that would be necessary to address it.  The archaeologists will provide input to the client on the regulatory requirements, work scope, and general schedule and cost implications associated with the options.  Ultimately, it is the client who decides if the options presented are viable based on their schedule or budget, public and stakeholder concerns, and/or other regulatory requirements.  

Throughout this process, the archaeologist does not tell a developer they cannot proceed with a project.   However, a developer may decide their project is not viable to pursue based on those various constraints.

Excavating interest from the next generation

Archaeology is a fascinating subject and the feeling of uncovering centuries-old artifacts is amazing. Interpreting the materials left behind by ancient peoples requires a broad-based education.

As part of our university programs, we pursue training in anthropology (cultural and physical anthropology, archaeology and linguistics) and other disciplines to assist our understanding of archeological sites. These may include geology, geography, biology, chemistry, Indigenous studies, history and statistics. We also develop a variety of technical and technological skills to gather and analyze data.

Archaeologists often find themselves teaching and delivering presentations to the public, clients, regulators and schools about artifacts, sites and resource management. For instance, I work wh the Local Government Management Agency provincial approving officers to improve archeological due diligence for development.

Our Kamloops chapter of the Archaeological Society of British Columbia hosted a regular educational and public outreach display at the Kamloops Regional Farmers’ Market this past summer and will be hosting an archeological speaker series this winter.

Education is a common aspect of our lives, regardless of whether we work in the academic, regulatory or resource management spheres.

One of the most satisfying programs in which I participated involved delivering an in-class archeological excavation program for students in grades 5 and 6. I provided an introduction to archaeology and its methods. We then discussed how elements of traditional First Nations and Métis lifeways and culture might be physically expressed and interpreted.

The class was divided in two sections. Group A created a small archeological site representing a 3,000-year-old First Nations campfire activity area, while Group B built a site representing a 19th-century Métis cabin. The groups then switched so that Group A excavated the site built by Group B and vice versa.

Using proper fieldwork procedures, the students excavated the sites in small teams to expose, map and record the artifacts. After “fieldwork” concluded, we undertook laboratory procedures to inventory the artifacts and make interpretations about what past behaviours they represented.

The students then prepared short reports on their excavation programs and explanations of their recoveries.

I loved delivering this program for a number of reasons. The program excited young people about the past and what could be learned from it. During the school open house, the students were so proud to show their parents the excavations and what they were learning. The best part was that the students learned far more than “just archaeology” without realizing it.

This hands-on activity required the students to think critically and creatively, use observational skills, take detailed notes and precise measurements, work collaboratively towards a specific goal, analyze data and communicate their results. Some of the children who had struggled with developing these skills during regular classroom lessons exhibited noticeable improvements through this experiential program.

I don’t know if any of those grades 5/6 students decided to become archaeologists, but they were able to build or improve their problem-solving, numeracy, analysis and literacy abilities in a program that didn’t feel like typical schoolwork. Those skills and the understanding they gained of Canada’s Indigenous peoples will serve them well in becoming flexible, broad-minded and skilled contributors in our society.

The Archaeological Impact Assessment

The Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) is a stage of cultural resource management focussing on the impacts a project may have on archaeological sites. It is conducted by a qualified professional archaeologist, involving the visual inspection and subsurface testing of a project area followed by an evaluation of identified archaeological sites in relation to development activities.  An AIA may follow an Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA), where documented archaeological sites or the likelihood of archaeological sites was noted.  Ideally, AIA is initiated early in project design to allow adequate time for the implementation of site-specific recommendations.

In BC, an archaeological site must not be damaged nor artifacts removed except under a Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) permit.  This also applies to an AIA, where subsurface testing may intercept buried archaeological deposits and artifacts collected.  An archaeologist’s HCA permit outlines the methods they implement during AIA fieldwork, analysis, and reporting for the proposed project.  The Archaeology Branch of the provincial government reviews applications and issues HCA permits.  First Nations bands in whose territories a project is proposed also review and comment on HCA permit applications.  Further, the archaeologist will apply for First Nations cultural heritage permits where bands have developed their own permitting systems.

The AIA fieldwork is conducted by crews composed of archaeologists and First Nations members. Following visual inspection, subsurface testing is initially conducted through manual shovel testing to discover and define the extent of buried archaeological sites.  Where there is a likelihood of deeply-buried archaeological sites, mechanical procedures such as auger or backhoe testing may be implemented.

If archaeological sites are found, the artifacts are collected and to-scale maps are produced of the site area.  Information is collected on the depth, extent, and type of artifacts recovered as well as any features encountered at the sites (e.g., cultural depressions, buried hearths, culturally-modified trees, etc.). In some cases, evaluative units measuring 1 m x 1 m may be excavated in a systematic manner to gain additional information about the archaeological deposits.  Following fieldwork, the archaeologist makes site interpretations based on analysis of the artifacts and field data.     

At this point, the archaeologist must evaluate and review the sites versus project plans so that management strategies can be formulated where impacts might occur. 

An evaluation considers the sites’ significance relating to scientific, public, economic, historic, and ethnic variables.  These relate to a site’s potential to generate understanding about human history; contribute to other disciplines or industries; provide educational, interpretive, or economic opportunities; and, reflect connections to current ethnic groups.  Ethnic significance is typically determined through discussion with the applicable First Nations for Indigenous sites.    

Project plans are then reviewed to identify the extent of possible impacts to archaeological sites.  These include direct impacts such as mechanical blading of site sediments and indirect impacts like on-going erosion to site areas or artifact collecting due to increased public access.  If it is determined that developments may alter a site, the management strategies take into account the type of impact, the level of disturbance, and the evaluated significance of the site.

The recommended strategies may include site avoidance, protection measures, excavation programs, and/or construction surveillance.  With the exception of site avoidance, these strategies may involve additional, possibly significant amounts of archaeological work and HCA permits. It is always preferable to avoid or reduce impacts to an archaeological site both in terms of preserving a culturally-important, non-renewable resource and to the cost-implications for proposed projects.

At the conclusion of an AIA, an HCA permit-compliant report must be submitted to the Archaeology Branch for review. The Archaeology Branch will respond in writing about the recommendations and outline requirements for any additional archaeological work relating to the project.  The report is also provided to applicable First Nations so they may remain knowledgeable about archaeological results and recommendations pertaining to their identified territories.

The steps that form an archaeological review

Archaeological sites on provincial and private lands are protected in BC under the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA).  Each site is unique and provides information on the cultural adaptations people made to their natural, social, and non-physical environments.  Many provide a tangible link between today’s First Nations, their ancestral groups, and the landscape.  Once disturbed or destroyed, sites cannot be replaced.  

When a developer proposes a project, government agencies or First Nations (for on-reserve lands) may direct them to work with a professional archaeologist before the project is approved for construction.  Initiating archaeological review of a proposed project early in its planning stages means that avoidance or mitigation strategies can be designed before impacts to archaeological sites have occurred. Taking a proactive approach reduces frustration and cost while protecting a non-renewable resource. 

An archaeological overview assessment (AOA) is frequently the first step in this process. 

The AOA is a tool to define the archaeological potential (e.g., areas with high, moderate, and/or low expectations for sites) of a project area as well determine the presence and nature of documented archaeological sites.  It is conducted following provincial guidelines and standards but does not involve an HCA permit.  The first step typically includes reviewing the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) system, an on-line database of archaeological information maintained by the provincial Archaeology Branch.  The archaeologist will then examine the reports associated with the RAAD results, as well as other archaeological, ethnographic, historical, environmental, and terrain data.  In this way, the archaeologist gains an understanding of details or gaps in information relevant to the proposed project area and generates expectations for what archaeological resources may be found.

The archaeologist will contact First Nations whose territories overlap with the project area to notify them about the proposed project and associated AOA.  This provides an opportunity for First Nations to contribute unpublished traditional, cultural and/or archaeological knowledge that may not be otherwise available for review. This notification and information sharing process is a means for the archaeological community to maintain respectful relationships and participate in First Nations heritage policies. 

When it is not possible to delineate a project area’s archaeological potential during the background review, the archaeologist conducts a direct-observation, preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) as part of the AOA.  The PFR is also conducted to provincial standards and guidelines. It is standard practice for First Nations members to participate in the PFR, which provides cultural knowledge and land use interpretation to improve AOA results. Documented sites within the project area are visited to verify or refine what has been previously recorded.  In addition, surface artifacts or features may be observed at newly-identified archaeological sites, increasing knowledge of the project area.  However, artifacts are not collected nor is any digging conducted during the PFR.

At the conclusion of an AOA, the archaeologist prepares a report for the proponent.  It will include a map that outlines the identified areas of potential and the locations of any archeological sites. The archaeologist assesses the anticipated project impacts in light of the desktop and/or PFR results.  Recommendations are then provided for further archaeological work if project activities cannot avoid identified areas of concern. Generally, the earlier in a project schedule that archaeological assessment is conducted, the easier it is to adjust the project to avoid areas of concern. The report is provided to the project proponent, identified First Nations and, as necessary, to regulatory agencies. 

Yes! You can get a job in archaeology!

I wanted to be an archaeologist since I was 8 years old. My “ah-ha” moment came when I was exploring a southern Saskatchewan beach and found two stone spear points.  I knew they had been made by human hands and, for some reason, was convinced they were 5,000 years old.  I was engrossed by this physical connection to a distant past and fascinated that people had made a living in the wilderness by using the materials at hand.

When I became an archaeology student at the University of Saskatchewan, I was captivated learning about the more than 10,000 years of human occupation in western Canada.  I also loved how archaeology incorporated knowledge from many branches of the social and natural sciences. Getting my hands dirty in the field school cemented my passion for the discipline.  Over the next years, as I progressed through my undergraduate degree and into graduate studies, I joined the local archaeology society as well as the professional archaeology association, delivered papers at conferences, worked with fellow graduate students and professors on research projects, was an assistant instructor on field schools, and met or worked with those in the cultural resource management (CRM) industry. 

Fast forward to 2017.  Since finishing my M.A., I’ve had a 20-year career in the CRM industry.  For the first several years of my career, I worked seasonally on a project-by-project basis for several CRM firms as a shovel-jockey or crew supervisor.  I continued to deliver educational programs in archaeology and conducted research and writing on a contract basis to fill gaps between projects.  Eventually, I gained long-term employment with a large consulting firm.  Today, I’m in business for myself.  Through this career, I’ve worked from James Bay across western Canada into interior BC, and from the tundra of the Northwest Territories to the lava fields of southern Idaho. 

Yes, there is work in archaeology.  I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard “I was always interested in archaeology but didn’t think there were jobs so didn’t pursue it”.  Today, the main employment opportunities in archaeology are in CRM, where developers commission archaeological studies to meet regulatory requirements before their projects move to construction.  For instance, this includes development related to mining, transportation, forestry, power generation, infrastructure, oil and gas, and residential projects. 

Those aspiring to become professional consulting archaeologists in BC must meet requirements established by the provincial Archaeology Branch.  This includes training and experience associated with achieving Field Director and/or Permit Holder status. In general, these requirements involve completing a minimum of an undergraduate degree in anthropology or archaeology and demonstrating ability by accumulating a specific number of days working in archaeological resource management.  These comprise experience on excavations, supervising work under Heritage Conservation Act permits, and receiving regulatory acceptance of a permit report.  You may need to work for several years on seasonal projects to gain the experience to become a Field Director.  But once you have a field directorship or permit-holding status, employment opportunities open up. 

Archaeology is not your typical job.  No two projects are ever the same. You see some amazing places, work with wonderful folks, and make incredible discoveries.  You gain a unique perspective that spans thousands of years relating to the adaptations that people have made to their physical, social, and spiritual environments.  Rarely have I ever been bored at work.

And guess what? One of the spear points I found at age 8 did, in fact, turn out to be almost 5,000 years old.

Analyzing stories from the past

I regularly receive two responses about archeological items we recover.

"Cool, how old is it?" and "So, you just collect rocks and bones?"

While I most appreciate the enthusiasm of the former response, both provide an opportunity to discuss analyses we use to gain information from artifacts.

How old is it? The best-known method to determine the age of archeological materials is radiocarbon dating. Analyzing the decay and ratio of carbon isotopes in once-living materials such as animal bones from archeological sites gives us a date range, for example 4,750 years plus or minus 82 years.

When stone tools are found in association with the dated bone, the date can be applied to the tools. This is particularly useful for tools whose form changes through time, such as arrowheads and spear points. So, when archeologists say an arrowhead is about 2,400 years old, it is because arrowheads of that style have been found repeatedly in sites where associated organic materials have been radiocarbon dated.

What was it used for or on? Organic items -- wooden tools, baskets, food plants or animal hides -- that were the focus of past activities often don't preserve in archeological sites.

However, specialized laboratory analyses can identify residues left on artifacts to help determine on what or for what the tools were used. Protein (animal) and starch (plant) residues unseen by the naked eye can remain on stone tools for thousands of years.

For instance, proteins specific to large animals have been identified on the edges of small arrowheads, confirming which animals were hunted in an area. Further, it indicates the power and accuracy of bows did not require the use of large points for big game or that small points were only used on small game.

Similarly, a wide range of starch residues have been found on tools confirming that harvesting and processing plants for food, medicine and construction purposes was an important part of past people's activities, even though we rarely find remains of the plants themselves. In some cases, the analyses identify residues of plant and animal species no longer present, indicating the effects of environmental change or human influence.

Where did it come from?

First Nations trade networks were extensive in pre-European times. It is exciting to find non-local materials such as scallop shell, whale bone or obsidian in archeological sites. There are specialized analyses that can determine, specifically, where tool stone originated.

When the chemical compositions or "fingerprints" of recovered stone artifacts are identified, they may be matched to the documented "fingerprints" of source areas for valued tool stone (for example, obsidian from Glass Butte in central Oregon).

When we determine an artifact's origin is hundreds or thousands of winding kilometres along river systems or over mountain passes from where it was deposited, we see the artifact for more than its specific function.

We are able to reconstruct and appreciate the lengths to which people interacted within and between regions to gather what they needed to navigate their physical, social and spiritual environments. Archeology seeks to understand people's adaptations to the world around them by examining the materials they left behind.

However, it is important we recover artifacts from their original location to conduct many of these analyses and understand what they represent. Much like how a paragraph missing many of its words does not make sense, an archeological site with artifacts removed cannot be properly analyzed and interpreted.

This is why we promote notifying an archeologist of locations where you may have seen artifacts instead of collecting them.

Todd Paquin is an archeologist.

Analyzing stories from the past

I regularly receive two responses about archaeological items we recover.  “Cool, how old is it?” and “So, you just collect rocks and bones?”.  While I most appreciate the enthusiasm of the former response, both provide an opportunity to discuss analyses we use to gain information from artifacts.  

How old is it? The best-known method to determine the age of archaeological materials is radiocarbon dating.  Analysing the decay and ratio of carbon isotopes in once-living materials such as animal bones from archaeological sites gives us a date range (e.g., 4,750 years +/- 82 years).  When stone tools are found in association with the dated bone, the date can be applied to the tools.  This is particularly useful for tools whose form changes through time, such as arrowheads and spear points.  So, when archaeologists say that an arrowhead is approximately 2,400 years old, it is because arrowheads of that style have been found repeatedly in sites where associated organic materials have been radiocarbon dated.

What was it used for or on?  Organic items (e.g., wooden tools, baskets, food plants, animal hides) that were the focus of past activities often don’t preserve in archaeological sites.  However, specialized laboratory analyses can identify residues left on artifacts to help determine on what or for what the tools were used.  Protein (animal) and starch (plant) residues unseen by the naked eye can remain on stone tools for thousands of years.  For instance, proteins specific to large animals have been identified on the edges of small arrowheads, confirming which animals were hunted in an area.  Further, it indicates that the power and accuracy of bows did not require the use of large points for big game or that small points were only used on small game.  Similarly, a wide range of starch residues have been found on tools confirming that harvesting and processing plants for food, medicine, and construction purposes was an important part of past people’s activities even though we rarely find remains of the plants themselves.  In some cases, the analyses identify residues of plant and animal species no longer present, indicating the effects of environmental change or human influence.

Where did it come from? First Nations trade networks were extensive in pre-European times. It is exciting to find non-local materials such as scallop shell, whale bone, or obsidian in archaeological sites. There are specialized analyses that can determine, specifically, where tool stone originated. When the chemical compositions or “fingerprints” of recovered stone artifacts are identified, they may be matched to the documented “fingerprints” of source areas for valued tool stone (e.g., obsidian from Glass Butte in central Oregon).  When we determine that an artifact’s origin is hundreds or thousands of winding kilometres along river systems or over mountain passes from where it was deposited, we see the artifact for more than its specific function. We are able to reconstruct and appreciate the lengths to which people interacted within and between regions to gather what they needed to navigate their physical, social, and spiritual environments. 

Archaeology seeks to understand people’s adaptations to the world around them by examining the materials they left behind.  However, it is important that we recover artifacts from their original location to conduct many of these analyses and understand what they represent.  Much like how a paragraph missing many of its words does not make sense, an archaeological site with artifacts removed cannot be properly analysed and interpreted.  This is why we promote notifying an archaeologist of locations where you may have seen artifacts instead of collecting them.