Archives: Articles

Peering up at it from below, I could see that this wouldn’t be a leisurely stroll. This flight of seemingly countless steps, ascending with rails almost like scaffolding to a destination high above, invited a small sense of adventure. But I could envision that, long before this modern, convenient construction, human visitors surely had a more challenging task. I was told that casual visitors once had to ascend with the aid of a rope assemblage, and long before that, Native Americans had to reach it using whatever devices or efforts at their disposal. Carved by nature in a bluff overlooking a tributary of the Ohio River known as Cross Creek, the ancient rockshelter above had remained tucked away for millennia within a lush green, hilly landscape of what is today called the Allegheny Plateau of western Pennsylvania. Thousands of years of weathering and erosion made this place a cave-like shelter for prehistoric human sojourners—affording them protection from the elements without and a space to rest, sleep and eat within.

Once I reached the top of the steps, I could move freely over a spacious, human-made platform, designed to hold small capacity crowds. I could now see the interior of the rockshelter clearly laid out before me, left as it was after the latest archaeological excavations closed out (although the site continues to be investigated). But long before archaeologists and others came to investigate and work at the site, nature’s hand had already morphed its appearance many times over through thousands of years of weathering and erosion. I could see the visible reminders of this in the face of the sandstone cliffs surrounding it. Slowly sculpted by water, wind and ice, it was an almost surrealistic picture of what time and the elements could do to otherwise seemingly impermeable and impenetrable stone. Today, the rockshelter is enveloped in an impressive, protective overhanging wooden construction, an architectural wonder by itself.

Archaeologists, historians and the public call this place Meadowcroft. For those who know something about the site, the Meadowcroft rockshelter is now widely thought to have yielded evidence of the earliest known presence of humans in North America, along with the longest sequence of continuous human occupation. It was first systematically excavated by Dr. James M. Adovasio, currently the Dean of the Zurn School of Natural Sciences and Director of the Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute at Mercyhurst University. His efforts included a team of colleagues and field school students in the early 1970’s. All together, they uncovered evidence of a human presence they suggested dated thousands of years before the time of the advent of the first broadly recognized human culture in the Americas—the Clovis—and its implied first peopling of the North American continent. Their dating at this site pushed the clock back on human occupation of North America to as much as 16,000 years ago. 

But this stature and acceptance didn’t come quickly and easily for Meadowcroft and its chief archaeologist. It challenged the prevailing paradigm, radically pushing back the dates on human occupation of the continent. From the very beginning, the validity of his findings related to the earliest human modified stone objects and other features of human habitation found at the site were marked with controversy. Decades later, however, the story of the Meadowcroft controversy has evolved to one of broad acceptance. Partly due to the mounting evidence from other sites with Pre-Clovis artifacts across the Americas, and in no small measure to the meticulous and scientifically rigorous methods used in the Meadowcroft research, the site has arguably become a kingpin in a new mainstream of scientific inquiry that has increasingly legitimized the ‘Pre-Clovis’ way of thinking. Today, Meadowcroft is designated as a National Historic Landmark, drawing thousands of visitors yearly.   — Ed.

_____________________________________________

Popular Archaeology took the opportunity to interview Dr. Adovasio (pictured right) about the site and its significance within the context of the ongoing search and debate on the first peopling of the Americas. What follows are the details of that interview: 

Q1: Would you describe your personal route/experience, attributes and interests that drove you to your current occupation or career? 

As I indicated in my book, “The First Americans,” I was essentially programmed to be an archaeologist by my mother, Lena M. Adovasio. She was a four-field major in college, one of which was history and another of which was chemistry. She taught me to read well before kindergarten with geology, paleontology, and archaeology books. As a consequence I never really wanted to do anything else except pursue an archaeology career. I knew where I wanted to go to undergraduate school in the 6^th grade and, in fact, attended that institution (The University of Arizona). The attributes which I brought to the “archaeology table” were and remain, extreme attention to detail, a high degree of organization leavened with intense self-discipline, and, I suppose, the ability to absorb and synthesize oftentimes very diverse data sets. It probably helped that, like my mother, I was endowed with a near perfect memory.

Q2: What is the story of how Meadowcroft first came to your attention?

When I assumed a faculty position at The University of Pittsburgh in 1972, I was told that one of the parameters of that position was the establishment of an archaeological and geoaracheological field training program in western Pennsylvania. What I had hoped to locate was an area with little or no previous archaeological or geoarchaeological research coupled with relatively easy striking distance of Pittsburgh for obvious logistical reasons. I also sought an area which contained at least one cave or rockshelter site because these were the sites I was most familiar with from my graduate career at The University of Utah. Because I had previous research commitments on the Island of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean, I did not have the time to locate a suitable study area myself. So I circulated word amongst my colleagues in the profession, and as a result, a now deceased historian/amateur archaeologist from what was then California State College, California, Pennsylvania, informed me about Meadowcroft Rcokshelter in the early spring of 1973. His name was Phil Jack, a longtime friend of the landowner, Albert Miller, who discovered the site. I arranged with both of them to visit the site in the later spring of 1973 and upon viewing it decided to solicit permission from the landowners to begin excavations there in June of 1973. The rest is, literally, history.

Q3: While excavating at Meadowcroft in the 1970’s, what was it that made you realize that there was something special or unusual about this site?

We initially believed that the deposits at Meadowcroft would be something less than a meter in thickness and that the oldest occupation would be Late Archaic or Early Woodland, at best. These estimates were based on excavations at other rockshelters in southwestern Pennsylvania and adjacent portions of Ohio and West Virginia. However, early in the 1973 season it became clear that the deposits at the site were well in excess of a meter in thickness and the recovery of Middle and Early Archaic materials signaled an older occupation than we had imagined. Of course, when the first radiocarbon dates were run after the 1973 season was over, it was evident that the site was initially occupied earlier than we suspected.

___________________________________________

General view of Meadowcroft Rockshelter facing west before excavation in 1973; vegetation marks the limits of the vegetation current overhang; large block in lower left represents a roof detachment ca. 12,500 years ago. Image courtesy James  M. Adovasio

____________________________________________

Q4: What finds convinced you that you had uncovered evidence of human occupation at this site going back possibly 16,000 years or more?

The answer to this question is more complicated than it seems. The deposits at Meadowcroft are characterized by a series of roof spalling and block collapse events which dramatically altered both the configuration of the rockshelter, as well as the availability of “livable” floor space through time. One such spalling event marks, in effect, the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary as well as, for all intents and purposes, the end of the Clovis interval in southwestern Pennsylvania. Beneath this spalling event, we expected to encounter no additional, older cultural material, but rather the parent bedrock of the rockshelter in the form of the Birmingham Shale. Instead of the Birmingham Shale, we found a series of apparent occupational surfaces replete with shallow fire pits and associated artifacts of indisputable anthropogenic origin. Radiocarbon dates derived from charcoal within these pits clearly preceded the established age of Clovis in eastern North America, thereby, and surprisingly to us, indicating an earlier than Clovis occupation. Additionally, none of the recovered artifacts, most notably the unfluted lanceolate so-called Miller projectile point [named after the site’s discoverer] and small blade flakes, were consistent with a Clovis ascription.

_____________________________________________

Lithic shown under rockfall is the type specimen of the Miller Lanceolate projectile point form. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

___________________________________________________________

Miller Lanceolate projectile point type specimen, obverse surface; the specimen is significantly re-sharpened and reduced in overall dimensions from the hypothesized prototype; it is unfluted, but basically ground. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

____________________________________________________________

Assorted Miller Complex artifacts from Stratum IIa (containing the oldest cultural remains radiocarbon dated to about 16,000 years B.P.) at Meadowcroft Rockshelter; from left to right: Miller Lanceolate type specimen made of local Cross Creek chert, prismatic blade flake made from Onandaga chert, prismatic blade flake made from Flint Ridge chert, biface fragments made from Flint Ridge or Kanawha chert (black specimens are Kanawha). Courtesy James M. Adovasio

__________________________________________________________

Q5: What is the significance of these findings within the context of the Clovis First debate?

Meadowcroft was the first site in nearly 40 years to seriously challenge the long held Clovis-First paradigm. Between 1933 and 1973, more than 500 archaeological sites in North and South America were claimed to be older than the Clovis horizon of ca. 10,900 to 11,300 uncorrected radiocarbon years ago. Prior to Meadowcroft, all of these Pre-Clovis claimants exhibited a similar history. First, you would read about them in a local newspaper or popular scientific journal, then more extensive treatments would appear in the technical scientific literature. Inevitably, the sites would then be exposed for some real or imagined flaw – the artifacts were not definitively of human origin; the stratigraphy was non-existent or imperfectly defined; the context and association of even genuine recovered artifactual material was problematic, etc. As I pointed out in “The First Americans,” each of these sites enjoyed a Warholesque 15 minutes of fame, then disappeared into oblivion. Each time one of these claimant sites failed, it reinforced the Clovis-First model. Therefore, by the time the initial reports on Meadowcroft appeared, there was a long established record of failure which served to render the Meadowcroft discoveries suspect ab initio.

Q6: Do you think the Clovis First paradigm is now discredited, or on its way out, given the findings from other sites across the Americas that show evidence of human occupation before Clovis times? (In other words, do you think there is sufficient evidence now to support a pre-Clovis presence or culture in the Americas, and why?)

To answer this question, it is perhaps useful to cite an observation by Dr. Jonathan C. Lothrop in his review of a Pre-Clovis site in the Americas, a  volume published by the Smithsonian Institution. He says,

“In 2015, if one polled New World archaeologists familiar with the literature, I suspect most would agree that there is a growing body of evidence of human occupation in the Americas that pre-dates ca. 13,200 Cal. B.P.” (Lothrop 2015: p. 256)

I certainly concur with Lothrop’s assessment, but it is also worth stressing that a handful of very vocal, Clovis-Firsters still remain and, like Hrdlicka in an earlier time, will probably go to their graves with their minds unchanged. The death of established paradigms often takes a very long time—as witnessed, for example, by the many decades which elapsed between the promulgation of continental drift and its widespread acceptance in the geological community. I completely underestimated how long it would take for Clovis-First to expire and I also misjudged the degree to which its “spear carriers” would hold on to their beliefs. This is all particularly interesting given the fact that, almost from its inception, most European scholars and virtually all South American scholars questioned the underpinnings of the Clovis-First model. The American response, of course, was that the Europeans were simply ignorant of the facts and that the South Americans didn’t even publish in English. The number and distribution of what might be called broadly acceptable Pre-Clovis archaeological sites now clearly points to an earlier than Clovis presence. I stress, however, that even if there were only one, then one would be sufficient. Monte Verde effectively terminated the argument even if its still vocal critics don’t accept the fact.

________________________________________________

Blade flakes from Stratum IIa at Meadowcroft Rockshelter; cross sections range from prismatic on the first three specimens to triangular on the forth; the edge is intentionally dulled for hafting. Courtesy Jame M. Adovasio

___________________________________________________________

 Bifaces from Stratum IIa at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

________________________________________________________

Close up of blade flakes from Meadowcroft Rockshelter; one edge of each blade flake is intentionally dulled for hafting, while the opposite edge is the working edge. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

____________________________________________________________

Polyhedral blade cores of the type from which Meadowcroft blade flakes were struck; these are very different from Clovis blade cores. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

________________________________________________________

 Fractured punch made of antler and truncated blade flake lying upon a 13,500 year old surface. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

__________________________________________________________

Q7: What were the specific challenges of excavating and investigating the site?

All cave and rockshelter sites around the world are part of what some archaeologists call the “marked landscape”. Places so designated were well known to aboriginal populations both in time and through time and as such, were frequently visited and utilized. While some of these sites probably witnessed yearly visits, many were only episodically visited. Because of repetitive visits, often over very long periods of time, such sites provide the opportunity for studying environmental change and concomitant human adjustments to those changes in very unique ways. Unfortunately, depending on the nature, intensity, and duration of these visits, these types of sites may evidence considerable anthropogenic disturbance with attendant difficulties in establishing the stratigraphic/occupational sequence. Additionally, because of the nature of the depositional process in many of these sites, even without human disturbance, the stratification may be remarkably complex. The combination of naturally complicated stratigraphy and repetitive human visits with attendant disturbance render the proper excavation of these kinds of sites very difficult.

Q8: What specific techniques, processes, methodologies and applications made the investigation of this site stand out from other excavations or investigations?

A necessary preamble to this answer is to state that a field archaeologist in virtually any setting – prehistoric, historic, or forensic – has three basic responsibilities. The first, and most fundamental of these, is the reconstruction of stratigraphy from visible stratification. While in English, we tend to use the terms “stratigraphy’ and “stratification” interchangeably, they do not, in fact, mean the same thing. Stratification is an objective phenomenon. It has both subjective and objective physical properties which can be detected, assessed, and measured. Stratification is a product. Stratigraphy is both the process by which stratification is created and the study of that process. The establishment of stratigraphy from observable stratification is fundamental and critical to the other two responsibilities of a field archaeologist. Without it, the other two cannot be done. The second responsibility is the delineation of context. Context literally means place in time and space and unless the context of all recovered material is explicitly defined in a stratigraphic perspective, there is no context. Finally, perhaps the most difficult field responsibility is the demonstration of association. Association means that two or more items have entered the archaeological record penecontemporaneously as a consequence of the same process. Association refers, in forensic terms, to primary or probative evidence as opposed to secondary or circumstantial evidence.

Suffice to note, for reasons already articulated, it is particularly and peculiarly difficult to execute the three responsibilities of a field archaeologist in a cave or rockshelter situation. To execute these responsibilities in any excavation situation requires knowledge of and the ability to operationalize all of the so-called laws of stratigraphy. While most people are familiar with the first of these laws – superposition – many are, to varying degrees, unfamiliar with the remainder. These include original horizontality, lateral continuity, and intersecting relationships. The key to operationalizing all of these principles – frequently referred to as Steno’s Laws – requires the ability to recognize and delineate the contacts or interfaces between discrete strata. Without digressing into an arcane lecture on methodology, it should be noted that during the Meadowcroft excavations much of our attention was directed precisely at facilitating and defining interfaces and contacts. Students were exhaustively trained to recognize strata differences on the basis of perceived textural differences. In practice, this meant that they could use their trowels to detect differences in compactness versus friability, density versus porosity, and related properties by feel and even sound. Once sufficiently skilled, our students could recognize stratigraphic differences quite literally with their eyes shut in much the same way that anyone could detect by feel and sound alone the difference between layers of cake and icing between those layers. Despite the reliance on texture in the excavation training process, a wide array of other things were done to maximize the ability to “see” stratigraphic transformations in profile. Meadowcroft, virtually from the outset, was fully electrified and thanks to University of Pittsburgh engineers in conjunction with assistance from Westinghouse, we were able to install an experimental lighting system that allowed the excavators to combine different light sources to illuminate stratigraphic profiles in a variety of ways. The difference between different light source combinations was and is striking and, at that time, had not been employed extensively as a supplement to excavation.

In order to systematically plot the three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates of artifacts and ecofacts, a series of vertical and horizontal datum points were combined, initially manually, and later, via total stations, to ensure the establishment of the appropriate provenience or context of excavated materials. Since the rockshelter had an active phone line, we could then communicate directly via telephone modem to the mainframe at the University of Pittsburgh to encode excavation data. To my knowledge, this is also the first time that was ever done – at least in a cave or rockshelter setting.

In order to provide objective verification of what were subjectively defined strata, samples of sediment from each stratum or microstratum were processed with a Coulter blood cell counter converted to measure sediment size differences. Once again, this was the first time such technology had been employed in the field.

I could continue in this vein, but the point here is simply this – given the experience and imagination of the investigators, coupled with sufficient funding, we were able to implement a variety of data recovery and documentation as well as analytical protocols which had never been extensively employed before. While some of these did not work as expected, many did. The collective effect was a level of precision in the excavations which virtually no critic of the site has ever questioned.

______________________________________________

Precision and care: Excavation of a thin anthropogenic surface at the site via single-edged razorblade. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

___________________________________________________________

Above and below: On-site documentation procedures at Meadowcroft Rockshelter; colored pencils which represented different combinations of silt, sand, and clay-sized materials were employed to produce microstratigraphic profile maps of all parts of the excavation. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

_______________________________________________________________

Q9: What arguments or issues did you have to address regarding the validity of the finds and their dating?

Virtually from the publication of the first radiocarbon chronology from Meadowcroft in 1974, the possible age of the earliest occupation of the site engendered great controversy. Significantly, especially as compared to other putative Pre-Clovis claimant localities, none of this controversy surrounded either the excavation methodology employed at the site nor the possible anthropogenic origin of any of the earliest artifacts. As already noted, the excavations at Meadowcroft were, and still are, widely hailed as “meticulous” and the “early” artifacts bear the unmistakable stigmata of humanly modified materials. Instead, the criticisms of the possible antiquity of the site pivoted around three basic issues: 1) the possible particulate or non-particulate contamination of only the eleven oldest radiocarbon samples from the site; 2) the absence of Pleistocene faunal remains; and 3) the apparently anomalous character of the recovered floral materials.

Dozens of pages of published material have been devoted to refuting the objections to the apparent age of the lower and middle Stratum IIa materials from Meadowcroft and these arguments will not be repeated here. It should be sufficient to note that there is absolutely no probative evidence for the particulate contamination of any of the eleven oldest C-14 samples from Meadowcroft. As to non-particulate contamination, the introduction of dissolved older carbon into just the eleven deepest radiocarbon samples from Meadowcroft requires a vehicle for contamination in the form of groundwater movement. An intensive micromorphological study conclusively demonstrated that such movement did not occur and, therefore, the non-particulate contamination issue is moot.

As to the faunal and floral critiques, modern research indicates that the paleoenvironment south of the glacial ice front in North America was remarkably variable and diverse. Further, the floral species represented at Meadowcroft were not inconsistent with such diversity. Finally, the faunal remains from Meadowcroft’s oldest deposits are diminutive both in numbers and weight, though all of the species represented have been reported in Late Pleistocene contexts elsewhere in eastern North America.

Put most simply, all of the currently available data suggests that Meadowcroft was sequentially and sporadically visited before the advent and spread of Clovis technology by populations who may or may not have been the ancestors to the makers of fluted points.

Of course, a larger issue, at least for some scholars, was the absence for a period of time of “other Meadowcrofts.” Now, of course, there are other sites of demonstrable Pre-Clovis age. Despite the best efforts of diehard Clovis-Firsters to discredit these other localities, often with incredibly convoluted and far-fetched scenarios, the existence of Pre-Clovis populations in the new world is now widely accepted.

Meadowcroft set the evidentiary bar! Monte Verde broke it! Other sites are appearing to join them. For Clovis-First it is the end of the game.

Q10: If you were to create a scenario or story describing the nature and lifestyle of the early, Pre-Clovis inhabitants of the site, what would it be?

As described in various publications, the earliest visitors to Meadowcroft appear to have been broad spectrum foragers rather than megafauna-focused big game hunters. These populations visited the site, as would their successors, principally in the fall of the year, utilizing a durable technology that included the production of unfluted lanceolate projectile points and the manufacture of diminutive blade flakes from polyhedral cores. They also employed a perishable technology that included basketry and presumably a variety of other less well documented related technologies. Their visits to Meadowcroft were apparently brief and perhaps separated by a number of years. They exploited a wide array of lithic raw material sources which I personally do not believe reflect their range. I would suspect these materials were acquired by trade and exchange. These sources include Kanawha chert from West Virginia, Onandaga chert from New York, and Flint Ridge chert from Ohio to name but a few. Evidence of these earliest visitors to Meadowcroft, named by us the Miller Complex after Albert Miller who discovered the site, are also evidenced at several other localities in the Cross Creek Drainage and a very similar durable technology is also evident at more remote locations like Cactus Hill in Virginia. While there are no obvious technological connections between Miller durable technology and Clovis, there is the possibility that some sort of relationship may be discovered in the future.

_____________________________________________

Reenactment of Paleoindian family unit showing both genders, different ages, durable and non-durable technology. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

____________________________________________________________

Q11: What is in store for the future investigation and research of this site?

About one third of Meadowcroft remains unexcavated. This area is available for future study when there are even more resolute excavation, documentation, and analysis protocols available. The main task at present is to complete the long overdue final report as well as a series of smaller contributions about one or another aspect of the long Meadowcroft sequence.

Q12: Are there any other comments you would like to make?

The Meadowcroft/Cross Creek operation was originally designed as an undergraduate and graduate training project aimed at both anthropology/archaeology students and those in related fields. Obviously, there was also a research component but this was, at least on paper, secondary to the student training goal. Because of the experience of the multidisciplinary research staff as well as access to extraordinary funding, it was possible to not only offer students state-of-the-art protocols in site excavation, documentation, and analysis, but also to constantly refine those protocols from both a methodological and substantive perspective. Because of the foregoing, the excavations at Meadowcroft were considered by others to be at the very cutting edge of the field. That they are still considered by many to be so is a testimony to the success of the methodological aspect of the project. We have always been more proud and pleased with the methodological “end” of the Meadowcroft project than any, or even all, of the results it produced. Expanding the envelope of the field in any perspective is rewarding, but in terms of actual enhancement of field data collecting procedures, it is and has been particularly gratifying. From a more substantive perspective, while the earliest materials from Meadocroft have garnered the most attention, the incredible length of the occupational sequence is to us far more striking. Because of the lengthy and hyper-detailed Paleo-environmental record from Meadowcroft, we can examine macro and micro climatic changes and their attendant consequences very precisely. We can also articulate in unique ways human responses and adjustments to those changes. That was in essence the “cake” we were trying to bake. That the site proved to be quite old was the unintended “icing.”

For more information about the Meadowcroft Rockshelter and other related attractions at the site, see the website, Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Historic Village.

____________________________________________

Visiting the Site

I must admit that I lived a full three years less than a two-hour drive away from the Meadowcroft Rockshelter site before actually seeing this site in person. Likely many thousands more are not even aware that this, clearly one of the most important archaeological sites related to Early Americans, sits so closely to their doorsteps. Accessing the impressively well maintained site and its associated visitation area is, however, not a simple and straightforward endeavor. It isn’t located conveniently off the well-traveled freeway circuits. But the driving directions provided at the website can be extremely helpful to any first-time visitor. Any visitor should be aware in advance that, to physically access the rockshelter itself, one must ascend a relatively lengthy flight of stairs. But this effort, though comparatively modest as hiking and climbing goes, is richly awarded with an up-close-and-personal view of the site and its scenic surrounding context.

 —Ed.

_______________________________________________

 General view of Meadowcroft, facing northeast after sunset. Courtesy James M. Adovasio

_______________________________________________

Subscribe to Popular Archaeology Premium. Available to all laptops and mobile devices, and still the industry’s best value at only $9.00 annually.

___________________________________________

Travel and learn with Far Horizons.

____________________________________________

This richly illustrated issue includes the following stories: Recent findings shedding new light on the whereabouts of the remains of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great; how an archaeologist-sculptor is bringing bones of the dead back to life; archaeologists uncovering town life at the dawn of civilization; an exclusive interview with internationally acclaimed archaeologist James M. Adovasio about what makes the Meadowcroft Rockshelter prominent in the ongoing search for the first Americans; what archaeologists are finding at the site of the ancient city of Gath, the home town of the biblical Philistine giant, Goliath; and how scientists are redrawing the picture of human evolution in Europe.  Find it on Amazon.com.

On any given day, you might see Oscar Nilsson busily engaged on a project in his new workspace in Tumba, just south of Stockholm, Sweden. A green and pleasant suburban extension of Stockholm, Tumba is a community consisting of families and workers connected to the town’s papermill and milk processing industries, though many commute into the city for their livelihoods, much like any other suburban community.

But Nilsson is unlike most other Tumba residents. He is a sculptor, though not of the usual variety. He works in a well-lighted 80-square-meter newly converted art gallery space. Now a studio, its bookshelves are filled with literature on facial reconstruction, anatomy, anthropology, history, art……….and 30 plastic replicas of human skulls. One can see a vacuum machine for castings, a lightboard, airbrush tools, brushes, and other tools of his trade, including a smaller room for castings and mold-making. He spends much of his time at two ergonomic worktables. Oscar Nilsson has a passion for reconstructing the past, or, more specifically, human faces of the past. He can do this because he is not only an artist, but also an archaeologist by education, armed with a knowledge of human anatomy, a familiarity with osteology (the scientific study of bones], and a finely honed set of skills for handling specialized materials to create lifelike, hyper-realistic facial reconstructions of individuals who came and went long before us, before the advent of photography.

For Nilsson the archaeologist, the artifacts and monumental remains that the archaeologist unearths in the field and interprets and reports about in the scholarly journals are important. They illuminate our understanding of our collective past.

“But history is made of actual people,” he is quick to add.

And this is where he lights up.  “Making a facial reconstruction is like opening a window to the past, an opportunity to see what the people from history really looked like,” he told Popular Archaeology. “So the face tells a direct story to the beholder, establishing an emotional and personal connection that text or written records can never accomplish.”

Looking at his creations, one can see precisely what he means. A medieval face stares defiantly back at you and you can hear the face’s owner say in your mind’s ear, “I have been ill-treated.” Or a 13^th century Swedish ruler, whose face shows not only his past-prime age but the contemplative facial expression of a man weighed by the momentary task of making an important decision, says “give me pause to think.” So life-like are the reconstructions, one could almost ask of these long-dead people: “Have we met before?” Archaeology, history, osteological analysis, state-of-the-art technology, and the skill of a seasoned artist and other artisans—all have combined to inform the creation.   

His finished subjects have ranged from a 5500-year-old Stone Age man whose remains were unearthed near Stonehenge in the U.K., to a young Greek girl who died in Athens around 430 B.C., to six drowned victims of a salvaged 17^th century warship.  With 50 subjects completed thus far, his works grace the exhibit halls of museums around the world. “My ambition is to get the museum visitor as close to the people of the past as possible,” he says. And like any artist, he has some personal favorites:

In the Museums

Located on the island of Djurgården in Stockholm, Sweden, the Vasa Museum houses the only nearly completely intact 17th century ship that has ever been salvaged, the warship Vasa, which sank on her maiden voyage in 1628. It draws visitors from around the world, making this Scandinavia’s most visited museum attraction—and for good reason. Remarkably preserved in striking detail, it appears almost as if it were built only decades ago. Equally remarkable, however, is the adjacent exhibit of six hyper-realistic facial reconstructions derived from the excavated skeletal remains of drowned seamen who vanquished with the ship. They represent the results of one of Nilsson’s favorite projects. “To reconstruct six faces of the drowned victims from the Vasa ship was a very special project,” Nilsson told Popular Archaeology. He mentioned several other projects in the same vain, the reconstructions of which are found in other museums, such as 9 faces of seamen connected to the Mary Rose—the flagship of renaissance England’s King Henry VIII—a Stone Age man from Stonehenge, and the “Bocksten Man”.

The Bocksten Man reconstruction strikes a particularly strong chord with Nilsson for a number of reasons. The remains of this individual, discovered and excavated from a bog about 15 miles east of Varburg on the west coast of Sweden, is among Sweden’s most famous medieval ‘cold cases’, evidencing a violent death. His clothing and other accoutrements were found in remarkably well-preserved condition. As Nilsson describes:

“Before the reconstruction was made his skeleton, including hair and skin tissues, were on display in the museum in Varberg. This has made a lasting memory for generations of school children who visited the museum. He became ”the phantom”, a frightening image of a violent death. But once my reconstruction was completed and displayed, something happened; he became a human instead of a freak. He regained some of his dignity here.

But the story itself is incredibly intriguing. This man, who died around 1370, may have been impaled. This has been interpreted as an attempt by the medieval community of the time to prevent the man from rising from the scene of his death as a ghost and haunting his killers and the neighborhood.

Who was he? His clothes tell the story of a man of elevated status in society.  But the times and the region he lived in were violent. Was he a sheriff, plundering the region, thereby making enemies? This is a common theory.”

Currently, he works on reconstructing the face of an 18-year-old Greek girl called “Aygis”, who died about 8,000 years ago during the Mesolithic age. The antiquity of her skeletal remains were significant, but it wasn’t simply age that brought her case to Nilsson. “I made a reconstruction of ”Myrtis”, a young girl from Greek antiquity (430 B.C.) years ago for the same client, himself being an orthodontist,” said Nilsson. “Both these ancient skulls have very significant dental closures, and that is why they were chosen.  Their unique dental closures produced two quite special faces—perhaps not pretty—but full of individuality.”

In the case of Myrtis, it was established that she had probably died of Typhoid during the 430 B.C. Plague of Athens, an epidemic that even saw the deaths of King Pericles and his family. The case of Aygis was not so clear-cut, however. Aygis’ bones exhibited no trace of disease. And except in rare cases or when the osteological analysis has revealed traumatic injuries as the cause of death, for most of Nilsson’s subjects the cause of death is unknown. But the question remains: Why would a young, healthy 18-year-old girl simply die?  “It can be tempting to draw the conclusion that the remains from a young person that show no traces of illness, disease or trauma had good stamina, as the bones look so healthy,” says Nilsson. “But it is much more likely that it is the other way around. A simple cold can be the cause of death in such cases. This contradiction is called the osteological paradox.”

___________________________________________

The Myrtis reconstruction. Courtesy Oscar Nilsson 

___________________________________________

Above: The Bocksten Man: The remains of a medieval man’s body were found in a bog in Varburg Municipality, Sweden. The bog is located about 24 kilometres (15 mi) east of Varberg on the west coast of Sweden, close to the Via Regia, which is known to have been an important medieval road in the area. The remains were found as farmer Albert Johansson was gathering peat with a harrow from a drained bog on 22 June 1936. On closer examination, Johansson identified parts of a skeleton and the following day contacted the local police and a physician. It was first suspected as possible evidence of a recent murder, but upon further investigation it was determined to be too old to be of criminal interest.

A local museum curator, Albert Sandklef, was contacted. Sandklef invited a team of other experts — among them the well-known geologist Lennart von Post, to examine and excavate the site. 

Generally (though with uncertainty) dated to between the 13th and 15th centuries, the remains indicate that the man was about 170–180 centimetres (67–71 in) tall and slenderly built. He suffered a traumatic injury on the right side of his cranium. Of the inner organs, parts of the lungs, liver and brain as well as cartilage were preserved. The tunic is among the best-preserved medieval tunics in Europe, made of woollen fabric. He was wearing a gugel hood with a liripipe (“tail”). On his upper body he wore a shirt and a cloak, his legs covered with hosiery. In addition to the clothing, excavators recovered a fabric bag, foot coverings, leather shoes, a belt, a leather sheath and two knives.

Scientists suggest that the man was likely violently knocked into the what was at the time a lake (later becoming a bog). 

Who was this man and what is the story behind the find? One hypothesis has it that he was Simon Gudmundi, the dean of the Diocese of Linköping, who died on May 12, 1491. In his book, Who was the Bocksten Man?, Owe Wennerholm argues that Gudmundi’s name may be the interpretation of initials that were found on what is thought to possibly be a micro shield among the finds. Historically, he argues that it is also likely that Gudmundi visited the area. Wennerhol suggests that he may have been killed by order of Hemming Gadh so that Gadh could assume the post of dean of the Diocese of Linköping. This, however, is only one of a number of possibilities and we may never know who the Bocksten Man really was in life. Photos, above and below, courtesy of Charlotta Sandelin, Hallands Kulturhistoriska Museum. 

_________________________________________________________________

 Above and below, facial reconstructions of seamen from the Vasa. Courtesy Oscar Nilsson

_________________________________________________

Viking woman from Randlev, Denmark. Photo courtsy Mads Daalegard 

_____________________________________________________

 Birger jarl Magnusson, Swedish ruler from 1248 – 1266 AD. Courtesy Oscar Nilsson

______________________________________________________

 Above and below, reconstruction of an archer from the Mary Rose. Courtesy May Rose Museum

_________________________________________

Above: During preparations for the new Stonehenge visitors center, Nilsson puts the finishing touches to the head reconstructed from a male Neolithic skeleton unearthed near the Stonehenge site. Explains Nilsson about the subject: “The grave was discovered in the late 19th century but the bones were recently the subject of extensive analysis and surveys. Some of the results from those analyses are amazing: He was born around 5,500 years ago well to the west or north west of the Stonehenge area, probably in what is today Wales, Devon or Brittany. At 2 years old he moved to the area near Stonehenge, and aged 9 he moved back to the west again. As he grew older his frequency of travel back and forth between those two places increased. How do we know all this? By analyzing the successive layers of the enamel in his teeth, isotopic values of strontium and oxygen reflected the sources of his drinking water.

He lived some time before the famous stone circle was built, but decades after his death, the mound of his grave was massively enlarged, one of the grandest known from Neolithic Britain. We also know from the analysis that he had a much higher percentage of meat and dairy products in his diet than would probably have been normal at the time. And he was taller than the average Neolithic man—172 cm compared to the average height, 165 cm. So, this was clearly a person of high status in his society.” Photo by Clare Kendall/English Heritage

__________________________________________________

Making a Face

The combined science, techniques and tools of Nilsson’s trade define a specialty that arguably only a comparatively small number of professionals across the globe can claim. As seemingly narrowly specialized as this area is, however, it does not begin in the studio. It actually begins in the field……..

From the site to the lab

Human skeletal and funerary remains have long defined some of the “sexiest” stuff of archaeology. The headline-making news of discoveries such as the remains of King Richard III, the possible bones of King Philip II of Macedon, and some nearly complete fossil skeletons of early human ancestors testify to this. But these sensational discoveries are only a few. Skeletal finds unearthed at most other archaeological sites, for which most of us hear little about, are legion by comparison. Like their more famous representatives, they are carefully, meticulously, and methodically removed from their original earthen matrixes by specially trained excavators and archaeologists, and undergo a preliminary analysis in the field as they are excavated. The real analysis of these specimens, however, occurs after they are brought into the osteological and forensic labs offsite. Here, the scientists examine the remains with physical tools and often high-tech, radiological equipment such as CT and laser scanning devices to probe their secrets and create three-dimensional models for further study. Forensic scientists and osteologists can sometimes tease a wealth of information from the bones, such as age, sex, height, weight, health condition, cause of death, and even occupation. Parts of some of these subjects, such as skulls or crania, are reproduced into replica copies using 3D “printer” technology. These replicas, or osteological reproductions, often make their way to museums or other labs for show or study by other experts. Or, in a few cases, to experts who can use them to produce realistic reproductions of the individuals the copy represents—bringing them to life, so to speak.

This is where Nilsson enters the picture.

In the studio

Nilsson would be the first to say that reconstructing the face of a long-deceased individual is not as simple as taking a guess and, with full artistic license, applying clay and paint over a plastic skull. He must gather as much information as possible about the individual he is re-creating. This means information about the time and place in which the person lived, the context and circumstances of the original skeletal finds, and detailed findings from the examining osteologists and forensic experts about the skull of the individual excavated or exhumed. This often goes beyond the basics, such as age, sex, height and weight estimates. It may involve any number of signs teased from the bones that may reflect the person’s health, condition or lifestyle.  “Any trace of disease, ailment or trauma is of big importance,” says Nilsson. “As my goal is to find the individuality in the face, a broken nosebone or a characteristic scar can get us a more precise image of the deceased´s face.”

Next, his task is to determine the unique form of the soft tissue of the face. He does this by attaching small, meticulously measured wooden pegs at anatomical points across the skull, defining the characteristic depth of the tissue at any point of the face and the cranium. To do this with accuracy, he must apply years of anatomical knowledge, with reference to special statistical tables of measurements subdivided by age, weight, sex and ethnicity. “On these points, measurements have been taken on humans for more than 100 years now,” notes Nilsson.

Once this framework is in place, he inserts prosthetic eyes and the actual sculpting begins, involving the shaping and placement of non-drying plasticine clay to recreate the muscles and tissues using traditional sculpting tools. As he works and the face takes shape, he graduates to smaller and smaller tools, finally recreating the details and any wrinkles of the overlying skin with variously sized needles. From this finely created three-dimensional model, he is then able to produce Acrystal molds into which he pours flesh-colored silicone to produce the model over which he paints the finishing touches for features, including application of the hair.

How truthful are Nilsson’s reconstructions to the people who actually lived?  

We know the scientific evidence, technology, and anatomical knowledge likely facilitates an accurate recreation of the basic facial size and form. But the cosmetic aspect—such things as skin color, hair color, and eye color—says Nilsson, is a bit trickier. Sometimes this may take an educated guess. “I try to bear in mind that people in the past lived their lives more outdoors than we do. This means more pigmented skin, more birthmarks, blisters etc., and the skin ages more quickly from the UV-radiation. Most speculative are the ears and the color of the eyes and hair. In recent years the use of DNA analysis on the originally excavated material can predict, with high probability, the eye and hair color. As this can be sensitive to speculate about, this development in my opinion is a blessing. But as it is time consuming and a bit expensive, it has only been used on one of my projects, a murder victim from the Bronze Age. I’m hoping to use it more frequently in my future projects.”

Looking Ahead

One day soon, museums will not be the only place a visitor can see Nilsson’s lifelike reconstructions. He plans to open his new studio space with exhibitions of his own.

Popular Archaeology asked Nilsson about his upcoming projects. “One of the reconstructions planned is a 14-year-old Stone Age girl that was found buried together with a very small child,” he responds. Her remains were discovered at a site known as Tybrind Vig in Denmark in the 1970’s. Dated to about 5500 – 5000 BC, Tybrind Vig is a Late Mesolithic Ertebølle Culture site, yielding graves and remarkably well-preserved organic materials like dugout boats and paddles. To recover the girl’s remains and those of the child, archaeologists had to work underwater, as the bones were submerged 300 meters offshore to a depth of 3 – 4.5 meters. In her time, her place of rest would have been dry, hugging the shore, when there was a greater abundance of inland ice in Scandinavia and the sea level was lower.” The Stone Age girl reconstruction will join other objects of the Tybrind Vig discoveries at Denmark’s Moesgård Museum.

Another upcoming project involves reconstruction of the face of a Stone Age man unearthed near Ulricehamn, Sweden in 1994. “Judging from his bones he was extremely robust with very broad shoulders,” said Nilsson.“And the skull of this 45-60-year-old man exhibits a significant elevated ridge running from his forehead to the back of his head, making it peak-shaped from a frontal view. These well-preserved bones surprised everyone when the result of the C14 dating came back: he was 10,000 years old and, with that, Sweden’s oldest skeleton. He’s named ‘Bredgården Man’, after the name of the farmhouse near the site of the discovery.”

Finally, Nilsson added, “I also have a ‘wish list’ of projects for the future. One is to reconstruct the face from an Egyptian mummy. The period has fascinated me for as long as I can remember. And, of course, a gladiator! A significant number of remains from Roman gladiators were found in York some years ago. This would be a fantastic project, as a gladiators´ life was so dramatic and cruel. The bones would tell the story.”

And everyone likes a good story.

(See Nilsson’s website, O.D. Nilsson, the Sculptor’s Studio, for more about his work and the stories behind his creations.)

_______________________________________________

Oscar Nilsson in his studio. Courtesy Oscar Nilsson

_________________________________________________________________

Did you like this? You can read much more about archaeology with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology.

_________________________________________________________________