Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763)

Lay summary authored by Martin Welker. Their full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

The human diet is influenced by a variety of cultural and environmental factors including wealth, status, ethnicity, and urbanization, many of which have been studied extensively by archaeologists. The degree to which local infrastructure influences the distribution of goods has been less heavily investigated but is no less significant in its potential to impact human diets by enhancing the ease with which goods can be moved across the landscape. Our analysis brings to light the effects road systems had no the diets of French and Indian War (1754-1763) soldiers in Eastern North America. The French and Indian War was one of many conflicts between French and English colonists and has been recognized as the “War that made America”. Colonists increasingly came to resent an English government content to leave the construction, provisioning and even garrisoning of many frontier defenses to the Colonial governments.

Fort Shirley Excavation

English regiments sent over to lead major offensive efforts during the war were composed largely of conscripts and criminals. And following the war colonists were subjected to a series of new taxes including the Stamp Act to cover the British Crown’s expenses. Together, these served as tinder for the subsequent American Revolutionary War. In addition to its historical significance, the French and Indian War is notable in that major British campaigns in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere drove the development of road systems and the construction of a large number of fortifications. These, including Fort Shirley in Huntington Co, PA, have been investigated by archaeologists. By studying animal bones recovered from these fortifications, our analysis demonstrates the impact that road systems had upon the diet of soldiers stationed there. We found that sites located in cities or near roads generally had far more domestic livestock (predominantly cattle and pigs) than those located further from major roads. For example, Fort Shirley, a frontier fortification, had very few domestic animal bones and soldiers relied heavily on hunting deer. Furthermore, cattle are far more common in assemblages from forts located on roads away from urban centers. These data support historic documents asserting that cattle and pigs were widely used for soldiers’ provisions. British generals leading campaigns in the Americas came to rely heavily on live animals, which could be herded to sites as an adaptation to the rough frontier conditions and poorly developed road systems. This practice likely explains the significance of cattle in many frontier assemblages.

Fort Shirley Screening

The full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

Welker, M. et al., (2018). Roads and Military Provisioning During the French and Indian War (1754–1763): The Faunal Remains of Fort Shirley, PA in Context. Open Quaternary. 4(1), p.5. DOI:

Posted in Lay summary | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Expanding our editorial board

This gallery contains 36 photos.

Open Quaternary is welcoming 36 new members to its Editorial Board in July 2018. Here we introduce the new members in the slideshow below. The full editorial board can be found at  


Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania – Palaeoenvironmental & Archaeological Analysis

Lay summary authored by Felix Riede & Livija Ivanovaitė. Their full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

Around 22,000 years ago, at the height of the last ice, northern Europe was entirely devoid of human populations. Archaeological evidence suggests that from 15,000 year ago, the environment warmed and glaciers retreated,  allowing people to once more explore higher latitudes. For the western Baltic region, this colonization sequence is pretty well established – at least in its rough outline – and consists of several migration pulses from a generally south-western trajectory, broadly coincident with the abrupt environmental changes of the Late Glacial period. In the eastern Baltic, traditional models would like to see the human colonization here as very much a parallel process to the one that unfolded further to the west. Yet, recent palaeoenvironmental research points towards considerable differences – leads and lags – between the environmental changes observed in the two regions. In addition, new thinking on archaeological taxonomies for this period has raised doubts with regard to just how robust our understanding of the Final Palaeolithic in the western Baltic actually is.

New research by a joint eastern-western Baltic team consisting of Lithuanian archaeologist Livija Ivanovaite and Danish archaeologist Felix Riede sheds new light on these thorny uncertainties. The team focused their efforts on reviewing, on the one hand, the available archaeological evidence and, on the other, recent palaeoenvironmental data for the two regions. Delving into the research history of the Lithuanian finds, their taphonomic integrity and how they have been interpreted by previous researchers reveals not only some fundamental disagreements between different schools of thought but also subtle interactions between recent political history in the Baltic region and the interpretation of these Final Palaeolithic artefacts. Importantly, this new research argues that the lithic material (Fig. 1) cannot unanimously be linked to specific cultures of the western Baltic, which opens up for alternative scenarios of when and from where these early colonists may have come.

Riede Fig 1

Fig 1. Candidate Final Palaeolithic stone tools from the territory of present-day Lithuania (image from Riede & Ivanovaitė 2018 under a CC-BY licence).

In parallel, the available palaeoenvironmental evidence suggests important differences between the two regions. By systematic ethnographic analogy, the pronounced changes in temperature and other climatic and environmental variables inferred from these data, are highly likely to have had an impact on whether, when and how Final Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers could operate in the eastern Baltic.

Overall, the conclusions of this new research are rather negative: The evidence is considered too fragmented and the archaeological material to poorly resolved to suggest detailed scenarios of this pioneer colonization process. The road ahead is clear, however: With regard to the archaeological evidence, new numerical dates should be obtained, new and ideally stratified archaeological sites must be found and alternative ways of classifying such artefacts using, for instance, replicable quantitative approaches should be discussed. With regard to the palaeoenvironment, more highly-resolved archives would, as always, help strengthen the emerging picture of regional Late Glacial environments and these should be interrogated for tephra isochrons so that we are able to directly compare palaeonevironmental changes along east-west and north-south transects.

The full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

Riede, F. & Ivanovaitė, L., (2018). The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research. Open Quaternary. 4(1), p.4. DOI:


Posted in Article Insights, Lay summary | Leave a comment

Ancient DNA and Stable Isotope Analysis Provide Insight into 19th Century Green Sea Turtle Dietary Ecology

This post is by Cyler Conrad and co-authors of the recently published paper “Ancient DNA Analysis and Stable Isotope Ecology of Sea Turtles (Cheloniidae) from the Gold Rush-era (1850s) Eastern Pacific Ocean.” Cyler holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

During the 20th century, sea turtle populations in the Eastern Pacific, especially green sea turtles, plummeted. Today, green sea turtles are recovering after the implementation of preservation and conservation plans. Of the primary causes for this historic sea turtle crash, anthropogenic over-exploitation and by-catch are significant factors. In this paper, however, my colleagues and I approached this record differently and examined whether habitat and dietary changes may have influenced declines in green sea turtle populations in the eastern Pacific.

From the onset, this project was multi-faceted and collaborative. In 2012-2013 Kale Bruner (U. of Kansas), Allen Pastron (Archeo-Tec) and I analyzed a Gold Rush-era archaeological faunal assemblage from a site in downtown San Francisco. A sea turtle bone appeared in the assemblage. Only a few years later, Michael Stoyka (Sonoma State U.) analyzed another Gold Rush-era archaeological faunal assemblage in San Francisco. The story was the same; at this second site additional sea turtle bones were recovered. Unfortunately, our combined morphological zooarchaeological analysis failed to accurately identify these specimens to taxon. We were left with a major question – to what species do these 1850s sea turtle specimens belong?

Fig. 1 Turtles

Fig 1. Sea turtle carapace specimens recovered at CA-SFR-195H in San Francisco, California. Photograph courtesy of Michael Stoyka.

At this point, our colleagues Marie Labonte and Brian Kemp from the University of Oklahoma Laboratories of Molecular Anthropology and Microbiome Research, provided a key piece of analysis which helped shape this research. Through their ancient DNA investigation, they identified that both Gold Rush-era sea turtles are green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). This proved invaluable. We now had well-dated green sea turtle specimens from two archaeological sites in San Francisco. Naturally, our next question followed: do these 1850s green sea turtles share dietary and habitat characteristics with their modern counterparts?

A review of historic documents, analysis of stable isotopes in the green sea turtle bone collagen and apatite tissues, and collaboration with Laura Pagès Barceló (Biology) and Emily Jones (Anthropology) at the U. of New Mexico and Jeffrey Seminoff and Calandra Turner Tomaszewicz at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, helped provide an answer. Investigation of a range of stable isotope systems, including carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, indicated that we have very little evidence for any dietary or habitat differences in our 1850s sea turtle samples and modern counterparts. Based on historic documentation we identified that these Gold Rush green sea turtles were captured and imported from the Baja California region of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and yet, when compared with a large modern dataset of green sea turtles from this same region, we failed to find any statistically significant differences through time.

Fig. 2 Turtles

Fig 2. A green sea turtle from the Eastern Pacific. Photograph courtesy of Boyd Lyon.

While this research may suggest that green sea turtle diets and habitats have not changed since the 1850s in the Eastern Pacific, we suspect this story is much more complicated. Our historic 1850s sample only includes two individual sea turtles, we lack specific information on the exact time of year, age of turtle, and location of capture – all of which influence stable isotope values – and our hydrogen and oxygen stable isotope values do not match known, modern sea turtle values. Our hope is that by someday establishing a larger historic green sea turtle dataset, and one that spans the historic (and prehistoric) period, we can clarify the patterns present within this study and understand if 1850s green sea turtles truly foraged in similar ways to their modern relatives, or if our Gold Rush-era samples simply match modern green sea turtle stable isotope signatures for some other, unknown, reason.

We have only scratched the surface on an intriguing and exciting long-term ecological record for an important, and endangered, species.

The full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

Conrad, C., Pagès Barceló, L., Seminoff, JA., Turner Tomaszewicz, CN., Labonte, MJ., Kemp, BM., Jones, EL., Stoyka, M., Bruner, K., & Pastron AG., (2018). Stable Isotope Ecology and Ancient DNA Analysis of Sea Turtles (Cheloniidae) from the Gold Rush-era (1850s) Eastern Pacific Ocean. Open Quaternary. 4(1), 3. DOI:

Posted in Lay summary, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ancient elephants in the Near East – DNA shows close evolutionary lineage to modern Asian elephants

Lay summary authored by Linus Girdland-Flink, Ebru Albayrak and Adrian M Lister. Their full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

Asian elephants (Elephas maximus L. 1758) were once found across a much wider geographic area than they are today. Whereas modern populations are restricted to small pockets across Southeast Asia they once lived across an area that extended through most of southeastern Asia, all the way to Turkey and the Levant in western Eurasia. Unfortunately, fossil remains of elephants that lived outside of today’s range are very rare and we know little about their relatedness to living elephants in Southeast Asia. It has even been suggested that Asian elephants that once lived in the area today comprising countries such as Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Israel constituted its own sub-species: E. maximus asurus or the Syrian elephant. The Syrian elephant, whether actually constituting its own sub-species or not, went extinct around 2000 years ago.

Fig 1. A partially reconstructed skull of Elephas maximus from Gavur Lake Swamp (MTA Natural History Museum, Ankara)

 New research by a team of scientists led by Prof. Adrian Lister at the Natural History Museum in London have shed new light on these elephants. The team focussed their efforts on one of the extinct elephant populations that lived ca. 3500 years ago in what today is southeastern Turkey. They specifically analysed elephant teeth that had previously been excavated from a lake deposit commonly known as ‘Gavur Lake Swamp’. These elephants appear to have lived and died naturally around this lake since the researchers have found no evidence of human activity on the bones or tusks, the latter of which was, and still is, a valued commodity for humans.

The researchers first analysed the morphology of the elephants’ teeth and showed that most teeth were indeed very similar to modern East Asian elephants. However, some teeth bore unusual features, raising the question of whether this population in fact was evolutionarily unique and only distantly related to elephant populations still living in East Asia.

To resolve this question, the team extracted and sequenced ancient DNA from the same teeth and compared the DNA sequences to those of modern elephants from across East Asia. This showed that the Gavur Lake Swamp elephants’ DNA was evolutionary very close to the DNA found in modern East Asian elephants; in fact, they found an identical match to a modern elephant from Thailand. They thus concluded that the elephants that once lived in Turkey were genetically similar, and thus closely related, to extant East Asian elephants, and that this ancient population harboured greater morphological variation than their modern counterparts.

The full paper can be read in Open Quaternary:

Girdland-Flink, L., Albayrak, E., & Lister, A.M., (2018). Genetic insight into an extinct population of Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) in the Near East. Open Quaternary. 4(1), 2. DOI:

Posted in Lay summary | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Turtle collectors and what we know: a meta-analysis of mainland Southeast Asia’s zooarchaeological record

This post is by Cyler Conrad, author of the recently published paper “Archaeozoology in Mainland Southeast Asia: Changing Methodology and Pleistocene to Holocene Forager Subsistence Patterns in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia.” He is a PhD student in the Department of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

There is a rich diversity of animals – mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and mollusks – in Mainland Southeast Asia, but which of these animals did prehistoric human foragers consume? This paper takes a closer look at the fauna exploited by hunter-gatherer groups in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia during the last 50,000 years.

My goal was straightforward: I wanted to explore broad patterns in the faunal data from this ecologically rich region. What types of prey were commonly hunted? Did this change over time? I reviewed the literature, compiled the data, ran several metrics to explore changes in faunal composition, and found several distinct patterns.

Fig 1. A spiny turtle (Heosemys spinosa) from Singapore. Photo credit:

Fig 1. A spiny turtle (Heosemys spinosa) from Singapore. Photo credit:

First, it became apparent that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Southeast Asia consumed Chelonians (tortoises, hard-shell turtles and soft-shell turtles) abundantly over the past 50,000 years. However, there do not appear to be tortoise or turtle-related extinction events during this same period – a striking difference from modern trends in Chelonian exploitation (Asian Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Status).

The trend in Chelonian exploitation during the late Pleistocene and Holocene is likely more complex (e.g. species specific exploitation) than I identified here. One issue confronting Southeast Asian zooarchaeologists is identification of tortoises, turtles and other reptiles in archaeological sites (see here for recent approaches). Most turtle and tortoise identifications are made to the Order or Family level, but no lower. Clearly, reanalysis of Chelonian assemblages is needed in Mainland Southeast Asia to understand what types of species-specific exploitation occurred during this period.

In addition to turtles, hunter-gatherer groups commonly consumed several other types of taxa, such as deer, wild boar and monitor lizards. In some regions deer were more abundant (Thai sites) and in others wild boar were more common (Peninsular Malaysian sites).

Finally, the diachronic analysis of the faunas showed a surprising pattern: little change over time. This was particularly remarkable during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, when climatic changes are thought to have driven subsistence change in this region and elsewhere in the world.

Fig 2. Chelonian carapace specimens recovered from Banyan Valley Cave, Mae Hong Son Province, Thailand. Photo credit: Original by Chester Gorman, copy provided by Joyce White and the Institute for Southeast Asian Archaeology.

Fig 2. Chelonian carapace specimens recovered from Banyan Valley Cave, Mae Hong Son Province, Thailand. Photo credit: Original by Chester Gorman, copy provided by Joyce White and the Institute for Southeast Asian Archaeology.

While it is my hope that this paper will provide novel insights into the Mainland Southeast Asian zooarchaeological record, there is much more work needed before we fully understand why these taxa were such popular food items for prehistoric hunter-gatherers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Article Spotlight: Older Collections and Meta Analyses

Our blog post series highlighting recent articles is back,  starting with the first of our summer publications, “The Promise and Peril of Older Collections: Meta-analyses and the zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early Historic Mexico” by Emily L. Jones and Caroline Gabe. Emily Jones is an Assistant Professor at the University of New Mexico, New Mexico, US.

In the past 5 years analyses rooted in “big data” have become ubiquitous in archaeology as elsewhere. Frameworks for successful conservation projects, the origins and spread of animal husbandry, the growth of London’s northern trade – all these topics and more have been the subject of recent meta-analyses. Such results are clearly breaking new scientific ground, but the plethora of such big studies has also highlighted concerns. Critiques of “big data” (for example, this 2014 opinion piece in the New York Times) have pointed out that when data included in analysis are collected with varying methods, spurious findings can result. A Harvard Business Review article title puts it succinctly: “Google Flu Trends’ Failure Shows Good Data > Big Data”.

My student and colleague Caroline Gabe and I both work with archaeological collections – that is, material recovered from excavations that took place sometime in the past. These collections are sometimes the result of relatively recent excavations, but sometimes they were recovered much longer ago, as far back as the early 1900s. The archaeologists excavating in the first half of the twentieth century used very different methods than we do now. In addition, older methods of curation can lead to the loss of some data, further biasing results. In short, archaeological meta-analyses involving both older and newer collections have the potential to be problematic for many of the same reasons that Google Flu Trends failed.


This specimen from the Comanche Springs collection was originally identified as a “skull” – even though all we found during reanalysis was bone fragments, roots, and dirt (photo by C. Gabe).

This specimen from the Comanche Springs collection was originally identified as a “skull” – even though all we found during reanalysis was bone fragments, roots, and dirt (photo by C. Gabe).

So when the opportunity arose for us to participate in a symposium on zooarchaeological meta-analyses, we leapt at the chance to explore how the simultaneous use of older and newer zooarchaeological data might impact analyses. Our Open Quaternary article, The Promise and Peril of Older Collections: Meta-Analyses and the Zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early Historic New Mexico, is the result. While (as our title suggests) we did find many potential problems in archaeological meta-analyses that involve both older and more modern collections, we also explored some ways to address these problems. The “promise” we identify begins with understanding the perils!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment